^l'f^r>V 



mm 





















3 } jo> J— 



a&.^ 



^o >^ 



> y>3> 

> ^o 





















I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 

|tap - |opilric)W S" -- 



>X3K>-' 



■-»-/>>'^3B>. 



>Sfe3> 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 



»-%>'^> < ^>'^'%'di 









DlDS>1>^ ^30&3^ 



s^S^ssjssfcfe 



>^^^>>; 



: 5£3fe>'. : 5u£> >^>.^. ' "i> ^ 



> 3^>:2>>->2» -^ 



^i«> 












^n^> ^ 






S^^P'^^ 






> :ao:> ;b» so 



y>~> :0»r> >3» s^^m 


> ) >:» :u* v> 


3l> 3B^3> ^a> 3g5* 


^ t> 3>Z> ! 


>>~» >->»§» ~r* ->~3k- >raB» 


) . > TT» ~Z3* > , 


v~vr>~5*?Ttj>»*^ Z5^s»- ijfc 




— *>'— -^ -^ <-< g ^> , ^^^=u^^ "^-^^T "^^^E 



>"JTXXSK> 113^ 



> 3«fiago ^ €>i3 









3J3^» 









» l> ^ ^> 









3SD^E>~3> 






>3 









s^tfes»K 



3»b > -.^>- , 












> 3> 351 









5*H^j>3K 









THE 



FOUR GOSPELS 



Examined and Vindicated 



ON 



CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 

By M! Heiss, 
Rector of the Salesianmn, near Milwaukee. 







MILWAUKEE : 

H o ffm ann Bros. 
215 East Water Street. 

1863. 









"Testimonia Tua credibilia facta sunt nimis." 

Ps. 92, v. 5. 

"Thy testimonies, (0, Lord !) are become exceedingly cre- 
dible." 

"Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ec- 
clesiae commoveret auctoritas." 

St. Augustini JEffasum. 

"I indeed would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of 
the Catholic Church would not move me." 



[Entered according to Act of Congress, A. D., 1863, by Hoffmann & Bros., 
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States of America, 
for the District of Wisconsin.] 



JERMAIN & BRIGHTMAN, PRINTERS, MILWAUKEE. 



7 l n~) 



«0 



CO 



PREFACE. 



God speaks to man in a twofold manner, by natural reason 
and by supernatural revelation. Since both of these proceed 
from the same God, they cannot be contradictory, but the one 
must rather strengthen than weaken the other. From this we 
conclude that since it is contradictory to natural reason to hold 
anything to be true without sufficient evidence that it is so, all 
that revelation proposes to us, must be shown to possess suffi- 
cient natural evidence. This principle has, however, been 
frequently misunderstood or misconstrued. Some deny that 
matters of faith are to be examined by natural evidence, be- 
cause, they say, in this manner divine faith would cease to be 
a virtue and a supernatural gift of God. Others, admitting 
the principle, misconstrue it in such a way that they draw 
from it the most erroneous conclusions; they say that since 
nothing which does not fall under the immediate human expe- 
rience, or cannot be derived from the first principles of the 
human intellect, can be made evident to natural reason, no 
doctrine or fact which is incomprehensible to her, can be ad- 
mitted as true by her tribunal. This is, we know, the starting 
point of all the different systems of rationalism and infidelity. 
The truth lies between the two opposite errors. To avoid 
them both, we must make a twofold distinction, first, between 
the natural conviction of the human mind and divine faith, 
and secondly, between direct and indirect evidence. What 
do we mean preciselv, when we say that any thing is evident 
1 



4 PREFACE. 

to natural reason ? We mean that it cannot be denied without 
denying at the same time the first principles of reasoning, aud 
consequently, without overthrowing all certitude. Hence if 
we are convinced by natural reason of the truth of any fact or 
doctrine, we rely on the first principles of the intellect, we 
trust to them, in a word, we believe in our own intellectual 
nature. But what do we mean, if we hold anything to be 
true by divine faith? We believe it because God speaks 
directly to man and enlightens at the same time the human 
reason by the supernatural light of grace. The conviction, 
produced in this manner in the human mind, is the effect of 
divine operation, man only co-operating ; it is, therefore, nec- 
essarily much stronger than the mere natural conviction ; for 
natural reason, though infallible in its first principles, as it is 
the limited faculty of a finite being, is subject to the possibil- 
ity of error in its operations, in the application of its first 
principles or the conclusions drawn'from them. But in divine 
faith it is God Himself Who speaks to man and guides the hu- 
man reason in its action by the supernatural light of grace. 
Hence the conviction, produced by divine faith, is a participant 
of the divine infallibility. Man in believing with divine faith, 
does not rely merely on conclusions, drawn from the first prin- 
ciples of reasoning, he does not seek truth by the natural power 
of his intellect only, but relying on the infallible word of God, 
he believes in Him and embraces the object of his conviction 
with a supernatural energy, added to the natural light of rea- 
son through the influence of divine grace. Natural conviction 
and divine faith, therefore, belong tp a different order ; the one 
does neither exclude, nor supersede the other ; no, they go 
together, and the more perfect each is in its own sphere, the 
more perfect will be the knowledge of truth, possessed by the 
human mind. 

Not less palpable is the error of the rationalists, in main- 
taining that nothing incomprehensible can become evident to 
human reason. In this regard we have to distinguish between 



PREFACE. 5 

direct and indirect evidence. Indirect evidence we call the 
conviction of the mind derived from the reliable testimony of 
others. To admit such an evidence as sufficient, is not contrary 
to reason, since we are compelled by the limited nature of the 
human mind to admit it to a great extent even in our natural 
knowledge. History, geography, and similar sciences would 
be impossible without it. All that reason requires by her in- 
ternal principles in such instances is, first, that nothing is 
proposed to her as being true, which contradicts her own prin- 
ciples, and secondly, that the truthfulness of the witness or 
authority must be shown to her by a direct evidence, derived 
from her own principles. Both of these requisites are per- 
fectly complied with by the divine revelation in regard to the 
mysteries of the christian faith. Though beyond the immedi- 
ate reach of reason, they do not contradict her principles, and 
the authority by which these mysteries are proposed to reason, 
is the most reliable, it is the testimony of God, Who vouchsafed 
to speak by His revelation to man in such a manner, that he 
can know by the evidence of natural reason, that it is God 
Himself Who speaks to him. For this end He established a 
living, perpetual authority on earth, approachable by every 
individual, and surrounded by such naturally perceptible evi- 
dences, that each one who does not shut his eyes, may know 
by the mere light of natural reason its divine character. This 
authority is the Church of God, a city seated on the mountain, 
the pillar and ground of truth ; she proves her divine authori- 
ty directly to reason, partly by the so-called motives of 
faith, partly by her divine organization and divine marks ; and 
this authority being once established, we have a natural and 
most convincing, though indirect evidence, for all her doc- 
trines. 

There is one point more, not to be overlooked in this ques- 
tion. Not all doctrines, or facts, proposed by divine revelation 
•are mysteries ; many of them are not absolutely beyond the 
reach of reason. Man perhaps would not perceive them, at 



b PREFACE. 

least not so distinctly without revelation, but being once pro- 
posed to him, he perceives their evidence also directly by the 
natural light of reason. Concerning them, it is not always 
necessary to establish first the divine authority of the church, 
and thence to derive the certainty of them ; in such questions 
we can arrive directly, or at least without the divine authority 
of the church, at an evidence perfectly satisfactory to human 
reason. 

Now these are the principles according to which we proceed- 
ed in this treatise on the four gospels. This, of course, is not 
the place to develop them perfectly in all their consequences 
and to establish the application of them against all possible ob- 
jections ; for our present purpose it will suffice to have them 
stated, and this the more so, as we presume that the most of 
our readers will admit them without any difficulty to be philo- 
sophically sound and theologically correct. 

The modern literature on Scripture, and especially on 
the New Testament, is very extensive. The protestant theo- 
logians of Germany have published, since the second half of 
the past century up to the present day almost numberless pro- 
ductions on the holy books. We admire their learning and 
indefatigable labors, but alas, we must confess that the gain 
for true knowledge from all this learning seems to be of a very 
doubtful character ; for instead of having corroborated, as we 
might expect, by their learning the divine revelation, as far as 
it is contained in the sacred books, they have, on the contra- 
ry, more and more undermined all certitude about it. And 
why so ? They started from principles which necessarily must 
lead to such fatal consequences. The head-principle of pro- 
testantism, that Scripture alone is the infallible authority for 
man on earth, is one of them; for in order that Scripture can 
be considered as such an authority, it must be divinely inspired; 
but to prove the divine inspiration of the Scripture without 
another infallible authority, is impossible ; and consequently, 
the doctrine of inspiration, and by this all infallible authority, 



PREFACE. 7 

has been given up by these theologians since the time of J. S. 
Semler. Moreover, they were all more or less imbued with 
the principles of modern philosophical systems of Kantianism, 
Fichteism, Schellingianism or Hegelianism, in consequence of 
which they founded quite a new science of criticism and inter- 
pretation of the Scripture, calling it the higher criticism and 
higher interpretation. The foundation of this new science is 
very plain ; it consists in the assertion that no miracles, proph- 
ecies and mysteries in the proper sense can be admitted by the 
human reason. From this then they derive very strange rules 
of criticism and interpretation. Scripture, they assert very 
distinctly, is not to be considered as the collection of divinely 
inspired books, but the Old Testament is nothing more than a 
collection of the Jewish literature, and the New Testament is 
merely the primitive literature of the first christians. Con- 
cerning the authenticity of the several books, the interior quali- 
ties of them are decisive ; the testimonies of historical tradi- 
tion are only of a subordinate weight in this question. The 
prophecies which refer to a determinate event in a distant time 
must be considered as a certain sign that the book in which 
they are contained, has not been written at such an early time 
as it claims, but later, either immediately before the stated 
event took place, or even after it. Therefore such books, they 
say, are necessarily spurious. The miracles are natural events, 
either misconstrued by the writer or not exactly stated ; some- 
times they are invented at a later period, and therefore a sure 
sign that the book which relates them, is not authentic. All 
these points, they continue, must be kept well in sight, not 
only by the critic, but also by the interpreter of the holy 
books. Moreover, the scientific interpreter must know, that 
the passages quoted in the N. T., by Christ and the apostles, 
from the Old Testament, are not used in their true and proper 
sense, but as they were understood by the Jews at that time, 
following an erroneous system of interpretation. The doctrines 
of faith must be subjected to philosophy, therefore only those 



8 PREFACE. 

can be admitted as sound, which are in accordance with the 
progress of the modern philosophy. All the rest must be re- 
jected as a part of the erroneous opinions of the age in which 
the book has been written. These are the leading points of 
this new science. Whosoever feels any desire to know more 
about them, will be amply satisfied in reading J. G. Eichhorn's 
Introduction into the Old Testament, vol. I, 62, or his Allge- 
meine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur, vol. 4, p. 251-353, 
vol. 5, p. 207. 

Applying these rules to the gospels in particular, there are, 
according to this new science, four different methods of inter- 
pretation and explanation to be distinguished; the first of them 
is named the historical method, and was adopted by J. S. 
Semler and Eichhorn. They say that Christ and the apostles 
accommodated, themselves in their doctrine to the prevailing 
opinions of their age. Hence all that the gospels in any way 
have in common with Philo of Alexandria, Josephus Fl. or the 
Talmud, is by no means to be considered as their real doctrine, 
and must, therefore, be thrown off as rubbish, to find under it 
the pure and genuine christian doctrine. As far as they pre- 
tended to explain the gospels by means of historical researches, 
they called their method the historical ; but certainly, its prop- 
er name would be the method of a weak-minded accommodation. 
Immanuel Kant thought to have found another straight path 
to arrive at the true sense of the holy, books. According to 
his philosophy, man is not enabled to know any thing of God 
but by his sense of morality. The moral doctrines, therefore, 
form, according to Kant, exclusively the doctrine of the true 
religion. Hence all doctrines which do not contain a moral 
instruction, are of no avail and must be rejected as empty 
speculations of the age. This became for a while the most 
popular manner of explaining the Scripture. It is no doubt 
the easiest ; for there is no great learning required, but only a 
sound moral sense to arrive at the true meaning of the sacred 
books ; and who will be so low-minded as to doubt that he pos- 



PREFACE. 9 

sesses this qualification ? — Nevertheless this method became 
soon rather tedious and disgusting to the common sense of the 
human mind. Is it not absurd to speak of a building without 
foundation, or of a tree without roots ? The same are moral 
instructions without dogmatical foundation. Hence a new 
method was invented by Professor Paulus of Heidelburg, who 
rode, as a writer says, the gray horse of rationalism for more 
than half a century, without moving from the spot. He im- 
proved the first method by the supposition that the miracles 
mentioned in the Scripture are nothing else but natural events, 
transformed into miracles by psychological illusions. The 
man languishing thirty-eight years labored under a fixed, false 
apprehension; he believed himself to be sick without being so; 
Christ perceiving this cured him by charging him severely to 
get up, take his bed and go home. When we read that Peter 
found a stater in the mouth of the fish, this means nothing 
more but that he sold the fish for a stater. No doubt this 
method is the most amusing on account of its overflowing ab- 
surdity; but probably for this very reason it had also for a while 
its admirers. We may learn from this, that learning without 
sound principles, makes man a fool. The most subtile and 
captivating of these modern methods for interpreting the 
Scriptures is finally the so-called mythical method. It was first 
introduced by De Wette, and afterwards more developed and 
applied with some eclat to the gospels and the acts of the 
apostles by David Strauss in his life of Jesus, published in 
Tuebingen 1835. They declare the history of the old and 
new Testaments, as far as the sacred books pretend to relate 
divine revelations, mysteries and miracles, to be a composition 
of myths and national tales, not intentionally invented, but, as 
it were, spontaneously growing out of the mythical spirit of 
the past ages, as among other nations and communities, thus 
also among the Jews and the first christians, to surround by 
them their eminent men, especially Moses and Christ, with a 
supernatural nimbus, and at the same time to symbolize their 



10 PREFACE. 

religious ideas. The scientific expounder, therefore, must labor 
to penetrate these symbols and myths, and to enucleate out of 
them the historical reality, or the hidden religious ideas. This 
method necessarily presupposes that the sacred books have 
been written long after the events had taken place to which 
they refer, and are, therefore, not authentic ; for it would be 
absurd to assume, that already the cotemporaries of Moses or 
of Christ would have described their deeds in a mythical man- 
ner. To prove their supposition, they make a liberal use of the 
rules of criticism, stated above ; especially they hunt for ap- 
parent contradictions, or for chronological or historical difficul- 
ties, exaggerate them, admit no reconciliation, and conclude 
then, that such books cannot be written by such an author, or 
at such a time. The testimonies of historical tradition are 
either entirely disregarded as being of no weight, or disturbed 
by all possible objections. Thus they obtain the desired end, 
the supposed spuriousness of the sacred books, to build on it 
their system. D. Strauss, writing in this manner the life of 
Jesus, caused great alarm in the protestant parts of Ger- 
many. When called to Zurich, to occupy a chair of theology, 
the protestant people resisted with the arms in their hands. 
Also in the literary world some reaction took place on account 
of this work ; even those who otherwise avowed the same prin- 
ciples, declared that Strauss went too far ; the historical 
character of the gospels was again defended, at least, 
thus far, that they have been written in the first century, 
about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, though 
not by those authors to whom they are ascribed by tra- 
dition. Dr. H. J. Holzmann, professor at the University of 
Heidelberg, maintains in his works, " Die Synoptischen Evan- 
gelien, ihr Ursprung und Geschichtlicher Character," published 
in Leipzig, 1863, that the first gospel has been written imme- 
diately before the destruction of Jerusalem, the third not long 
after, the second, at least as we have it now, probably also 
after the said catastrophe. Yet there is scarcely one of these 



PREFACE. 11 

modern writers who agrees with the other. The fanatic Ewald 
in Goettingen hates and abhors the protestant theologians of 
Tuebingen not less than the Pope of Rome, which animosity 
however, is amply repaid again by the adherents of the late 
Professor Baur of Tuebingen. In the mean time, this distruc- 
tive criticism, which for a long while was confined to the pro- 
testant universities of Germany, spread also into other coun- 
tries. The controversy, raised in England in our days by 
Colenso, manifests the same principles, and E. Renan reprodu- 
ces in France the results of the German critics, in boldness 
even surpassing them. " The miracles of the gospel, he says, 
are in general conceived after natural analogies and violate not 
too much the laws of nature, like the wonders of the Indo-Eu- 
ropean mythology."*) In another place the same author says : 
" To understand Jesus, we must be hardened against the mira- 
cles ; we must elevate ourselves above our age of reflection 
and slow-working analysis, in order to contemplate the facul- 
ties of the soul in that state of prolific and naive liberty, in 
which, disdaining our painful combinations, they attain their 
object without reflecting on themselves. "f) He thinks even, 
that the ideality of the moral character of Jesus might be ac- 
knowledged, without any necessity of believing in His histor- 
ical reality. J) These short strictures on this modern school of 
criticism will suffice to show to the reader, why we could 
scarcely make any use of their productions, nor take in con- 
sideration their bewildering theories. But, you may ask, should 
they not be refuted? Certainly; yet we think, the plainest 

*) Etudes d'historie religieuse, p. 177. 

f) 1. c. p. 192. 

J) La peinture d'une sublime caractere ne gagne rien a sa conformite avee 
un heros reel, 1. c. p 214. Whilst writing these lines, we read in the Allg. 
Zeitung, June 27, 1863, that the same author is about publishing " La vie de 
Jesus," based on the researches of the German critics. It is said to be looked 
for with great anxiety by both the friends and opponents of R. But even the 
Allg. Z. disapproves of his'tendencies. Dr. Holzmann calls R. a pantheist. 
We are told that L. Veuillot prepares a refutation of R. ; s "La vie de Jesus. v 



12 PREFACE. 

way to do this, will be to lay open the principles of this hyper- 
criticism, to oppose to them the simple statements of historical 
tradition, and to meet the difficulties, which they derive from 
apparent errors or mistakes in the holy books. In this man- 
ner we endeavored by this treatise to oppose this baneful criti- 
cism, without troubling the reader with all the details of its 
evaporations. By divers reasons we were compelled to be 
short, and hence it may happen, that, at least at the first view, 
the reader will not be satisfied in all instances ; yet we enter- 
tain the hope, that the whole being carefully considered in its 
connection, our aim also in regard to this criticism will not 
be entirely frustrated. We are, however, not so much self- 
conceited as not to perceive the many imperfections of this 
treatise. We labored under many difficulties and disadvanta- 
ges of which the author's deficiency in the English language 
was not the least. In this regard, therefore, we ask the kind 
indulgence of the reader. — It will be easily perceived that we 
have no predilection for novel opinions and theories ; hence as 
far as it was consistent with facts and principles, we maintain- 
ed always the common doctrine of the theologians. Only once 
we were tempted to adopt such a modern theory ; to explain 
the near affinity between the synoptical gospels, in our times 
the hypothesis has been offered that they depend on one com- 
mon source, the so-called primitive gospel, which has heen lost. 
We considered at first this supposition to be harmless, and, at 
the same time, well adapted to solve the riddle. Yet consid- 
ering that such a primitive gospel is never mentioned by any of 
the fathers, and is rather opposed to their view on the origin 
of these three gospels, we gave it up. It is our settled theo- 
logical conviction, that the common doctrine of the theologians 
within the church, at least in any question connected with 
faith, is always essentially correct. What is sometimes wanting 
consists only in its being not yet perfectly developed, or in its 
not being established on a sufficiently solid basis against the 



PREFACE. 13 

difficulties which in the course of time may arise against it from 
various sources. 

The annotations under the text should not be left unread ; 
they form frequently the basis of our argumentation. We 
took great care for the correctness of the quotations, in order 
that the reader may be enabled in every instance to examine 
our conclusions. Some slight typographical errors, we think, 
will be easily noticed and corrected by the reader. 

We intended at first to comprise in this treatise all the books 
of the N. T ; but perceiving the difficulties to which a publica- 
tion of a larger work is subjected, we confined our labors to the 
four gospels, leaving the rest to some future period, or what 
we would wish much more, to some other author among the 
venerable clergy of this country. Certainly the sacred books 
are an inexhaustible source, always yielding a joyful recom- 
pense to the skillful laborer. May God grant, that also by 
means of this our humble labor some benefit will be drawn from 
this sacred fountain. M. H. 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 



1) The Catholic believes by the authority of the church, that 
all the books contained in the Latin Vulgate, are the inspired 
word of God*) The centre, we may say, of all of them, 
both of the old and new Testament lies in the four gospels, 
so that though all are sacred, these books are of a pre-eminent 
importance according to the doctrine of the fathers ; they con- 
tain the falfilment of all that has been foreshadowed and fore- 
told in the Old Testament, and not less at the same time, also 
all the elements or germs of which the other apostolical writings 
and the whole history of the church until the end of time, are 
a continuous development. The eternal Son of God, made 
man, appears in them in full reality among men, and manifests 
His glory to man, the glory as of the only begotten of the 
Father, full of grace and truth, of Whose fullness we all have re- 
ceived, and grace for grace. JSTo wonder, therefore, that all the in- 
structions of the faithful are based principally on these sacred 
books, and moreover that the liturgy of the church contains not 
only many parts of the gospels, but that it represents in the cycle 
of its festivals, continuously in a symbolical manner all the 
main events recorded in them. Indeed to understand them well, 
is the true wisdom for man, is to know all, at least implicitly, 
and therefore, we think, that to confer something towards their 
better understanding, little as it may be, is a labor that brings 
its own reward. 

2.) The principal aim of this treatise t is, first, to remove 
the difficulties which we encounter partly from human frailty, 
partly from human perversity concerning these sacred books, 
and secondly, to bring at the same time the principal events of 
the sacred history in their full truth and connection somewhat 



*) la many editions of the Vulgate there are also added the "Prayer of 
Manasses' J and the third and fourth book of Esdras. but they are expressly 
declared not to be canonical. 



16 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

nearer to the mind. For this end we shall endeavor to show, 
1.) that the books, even considered merely in the light of natural 
reason, are most trustworthy historical documents ; 2) that the 
text of them as preserved to the present day, is not only cor- 
rect, at least without any essential corruption, but divinely in- 
spired. The inspiration of the sacred books is a definite article 
of faith for the catholic ; the other two points, the historical 
reliability, of them and the correctness of their text, are neces- 
sarily presupposed by the fact of the inspiration, and conse- 
quently though not expressly defined by the church, pertain, 
as the theologians say, to the faith. The inspiration imports a 
supernatural fact, not subject to merely human experience, 
and hence cannot be directly demonstrated by merely natural 
arguments, but must be derived from faith in the divine au- 
thority of the church. The other two points, though the cath- 
olic has also for them the assurance of the infallible church, 
as they do not imply anything that is beyond the reach of 
arguments, afforded by human reason and research, admit the 
possibility of a direct proof, not superseding faith concerning 
them, but corroborating it. 

3.) We divide the whole treatise into two parts, of which, 
however, the first will be far more extensive than the second ; 
for in order to show, that the four gospels are trustworthy 
historical documents, we must, according to the rules of histori- 
cal criticism, enter into the following two questions: 1) whether the 
gospels are authentic ; that is, really written by those holy and 
trustworthy men, to whom they are ascribed ; 2) whether the 
four evangelists, writing on the same subject, are perfectly 
free from all errors and real contradictions among themselves. 
To answer this question, we shall compare them first in general, 
and then also more in detail, by which we find occasion to enter 
on all principal events in the life of Christ, and thus to render 
the treatise of some practical service. 

In the second part we shall give a synopsis of the political 
history of the Jews at the time of Christ, to see from this 
whether the facts, refated in the gospels, are in accordance with 
all that we know by profane history, and therefore, in every 
way historically certain. To this we add the two important 
questions, on the correctness of the sacred text and its in- 
spired character. But as we think, that these points can be 
made sufficiently clear without entering into minute detail, we 
considered it better to be short, and not to try too much the 
patience of the reader. 



PART I. 

THE FOUR GOSPELS CLAIM OUR FULL 
BELIEF ACCORDING TO THE PRINCI- 
PLES OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM. 



ARTICLE I. 



THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUK GOSPELS. 



I. — The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 

1. The Greek word Euayy&taov, in Latin Evangeliiun, like the 
old Saxon term "God-spel," signifies, etymologically, "good 
tidings; " yet by the sacred authors, and by the ecclesiastical 
writers, the same word is used in a fourfold sense, namely : to 
signify 1) The object of these good tidings, as we read Matth. 

6, 23, "And Jesus went about all Galilee, preaching the 

G-ospel of the Kingdom." 2) The doctrine of Christ, as dis- 
tinct from the divine revelation in the Old Testament, Matth. 
24, 14: "And this G-ospel of the Kingdom shall be preached 
in the whole world." 3) The preaching of this doctrine, in 
which sense we find it especially used in the epistles of St. 
Paul, f. ex., 1 Cor., chap. 4 : " For in Christ Jesus by the 
Gospel I have begotten you." 4) The history of the life of 



18 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

Christ on earth, Mark 1, 1 : " The beginning of the Gospel of 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God." In this last sense the first 
four books of the New Testament are called gospels. 

2. The first of these gospels is ascribed to St. Matthew; 
who was he ? In the 9th chap., v. 9, of the very same gospel 
itself, we read that Jesus, when He saw a man named Matthew, 
sitting in the toll-house, said to him: "Follow me; and he 
rose up and followed Him." This same Matthew was after- 
wards received into the number of the apostles, according to 
chap. 10, v. 3, where, in order to give us full assurance of the 
identity of the person, he is expressly called Matthew, the tax- 
gatherer. St. Mark, chap. 2, v. 14, and St. Luke, chap. 5, 
v. 27, speak of the conversion of a tax-gatherer in the same 
connection of facts, and almost in the very same words, as we 
read in the first gospel ; yet they call him not Matthew, but 
Levin or Levi : moreover, in the catalogue of the names of the 
apostles, both of them give the name Matthew without the epi- 
thet "the tax-gatherer." In these differences between the 
first and the two following gospels, the fathers have already 
seen an indication that the tax-gatherer Matthew, who became 
one of the twelve apostles, is the author of the first gospel. 
The other Evangelists, says St. Chrysostom, considered it prop- 
er, to conceal in this manner, the former occupation of the 
apostle, as the name and the business of a tax-gatherer was most 
odious to the Jews, whilst Matthew himself acknowledged it 
openly, to commend hereby the great grace he had received, 
and to show by his example, that none need despair of the divine 
mercy. It is very likely that Levi was St. Matthew's former 
name, which was afterwards changed in that of Matthew, eith- 
er by himself or by the Lord, in a similar manner, as the names 
of Saints Peter and Paul were changed. 

3. Eusebius*) refers, to prove the same, to another differ- 
ence between the first and the tw T o other gospels ; he observes 
that in the first and third gospels, the names of the apostles are 

*) Euseb. Demonst. Evang. lib. 3, \ 15. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 19 

introduced two by two ; St. Matthew is paired with Thomas, 
but with this difference, that in the first gospel Thomas precedes 
Matthew, whilst St. Luke, chap. 16, v. 19, and also St. Mark, 
chap. 3, v. 18, place Matthew before Thomas. It is, accord- 
ing to Eusebius, the humility of Matthew, the author of the 
first gospel, that caused this difference ; he placed himself after 
Thomas, but the other Evangelists, knowing from the traditions 
of the apostles, that the preference was due to Matthew, placed 
him prior to Thomas.*) Another remark of St. Mark, name- 
ly, that he calls Matthew the son of Alpheus, caused some to 
believe that he was a brother of St. James, the apostle, who 
likewise is called the son of Alpheus ; but as tradition knows 
nothing of such a near relation between these two apostles, 
and moreover as the brothers of James, as we shall see further 
on below, are expressly mentioned in the Scripture, without 
ever naming Matthew among them, we must rather sav that 
the fathers of James and Matthew bore merely the same name, 
without any further connection. 

4. It is very little that we know of this apostle from tradi- 
tion. Eusebius relates in his church-history, f) that Matthew, 
after having preached first the gospel to the Hebrews, went for 
the same purpose also to other nations. Eufinus and Socrates, 
the church-historians, state that he preached the gospel after- 
wards in Ethiopia, but St. Ambrose and others say, he went 
among the Persians ; St. Clement of Alexandria remarks, j) 
that he led a very severe ascetical life. Certain, however, it 
is from tradition, that Matthew, before he left Palestine, had 
written the first of the four gospels ascribed to him, in order 
to supply those whom he left, in this manner with what was 
wanting to them by his absence. §) 

* Euseb. 1. c, audi itaque Lueam, ut Matthaei nientionein faciens, non 
publicanum elicit neque post Tnoniarn collocat, seel praestautiorem ilium cog" 
noscens, priorem quoque norninavit. Patrit. Comment, p. I, p. 5. 

f) Euseb. 3, 24. Eccl. Hist. 

%) Paedag II, 1, p. 174. 

$) Euseb. 1. c. Matthaeus quum Hebraeis primum fidempraedicavit, iude ad 



20 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

5. The first authority for this historical fact is Papias, who 
was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, and who wrote a work en- 
titled " an exposition or narration of the words of the Lord,"*) 
about 116 — 120 A. Ch. The work itself is not now extant ; but 
some extracts from it have been preserved in the writings of 
St. Irenaeus and of Eusebius ; both of them being authors of 
perfect reliability, we are entirely sure that the work of Pap- 
ias, of which they give passages, was genuine beyond any doubt. 
In these extracts we read, that Papias collected from among 
the eldest of his time, the traditions of the apostles. From 
this source, therefore, is also derived what he states on our gos- 
pel; he says " But Matthew has written in the Hebrew lan- 
guage, the words of the Lord."f) Next to Papias follows St. 
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, about 178 A. Ch., 
whither he had emigrated from Minor Asia ; he was a disciple 
of St. Polycarp, and according to St. Jerom, also of Papias ; 
in his work against the heresies of his time, he states : " Mat- 
thew has published among the Hebrews, in their own dialect, 
also a writ of the gospel. "J) Clement of Alexandria, who was 
ordained priest in the year 195 A. Ch., states the same ;§) and 
Tertullian, who was born in the year 163 A. Ch., and died 
about 213, calls St. Matthew the most faithful commentator of 
the gospel. ||) Hence we see that a gospel written by St. Mat- 



alias quoque gentes profecturus evangelium suuni patrio sermone conscribens 
id quod praesentiae suae adhuc superesse videbatur, scripto illis, quos relin- 
quebat, supplevit. 

*) 'EtjTfyqcLg ruv Kvpianuv /,6yuv. — The word \6yoi. loyia means not only 
: - words or sentences " of the Lord, but includes also a narrative of facts, 
as we see from the passage of Papias, which refers to St. Mark, where he 
uses /.oyoc in the same sense as ra vrcb rovXpiarov ?)Aex$£vra rj izpax^evra. 
Hilgenf, Kanon N. T. p. 161. 

j) MarflaZof fxev ovv efipaidi dcaliuru ra 7.6yta rov KVpiov oweypdiparo. Euseb 
ecel, p. Ill, 39. 

J) '0 u£vMar#a7of h ro'iQ 'Eppaiois rrf Idla dta/ieK-y avrcbv nal ypatffvi tfveyKev 
evayyi/Xiov. Adv. haer. lib. Ill, 1 n. 1. 

|) Strom. I. 2 v. p. 409. 

||) De carne Christi, c. 22, Ipse inprimis Matthaeus fidelissimus Evangelii, 
commentator, ut comes Domini. Item cont. Marc IV, 2, 5. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 21 

thew, was known in the second century in Minor Asia, in 
Alexandria, in Gaul, and in the western part of Africa, and 
moreover, that the testimonies for this fact reach up to the very 
times of the apostles, as St. Papias with his friend, St. Poly- 
carp, was a disciple of St. John, the apostle. 

6. Besides these testimonies, we have frequent references, 
or at least allusions to this gospel in the writings of the apos- 
tolic fathers, in the epistles of St. Barnabas, of St. Clement 
of Rome, who was bishop of Rome about 91 A. Ch., and died 
about 100 A. Ch. ; then of St. Ignatius M., who is believed to 
have been elected bishop of Antioch in 67, and died between 
107 and 115 A. Ch. ; also of Polycarp, a friend of St. Igna- 
tius, (born 61, and died 167 A. Ch.,) and the more extensive 
works of St. Justin M., born 99, and died 164 A. Ch., contain 
so many references to this gospel, that no doubt is left, that 
the sacred book, to which these fathers refer, is the very 
same gospel which we ascribe to St. Matthew. For the sake 
of brevity, I confine myself, and give only one of these quota- 
tions, namely that which we find in the epistle of St. Barna- 
bas. It has been questioned whether this epistle has been writ- 
ten by Barnabas, the companion of St. Paul. Eusebius places 
it in one passage*) among the spurious books, and in another 
passagef) among the contradicted, that is, among those which 
are not admitted by all as canonical ; and St. Jerom calls it 
apocryphical, that is a book that was read in the church with- 
out being canonical. From these expressions some modern 
critics have concluded that this epistle was not written by St. 
Barnabas ; yet it seems that Eusebius and St. Jerom did not 
deny the authorship of St. Barnabas, but merely the inspired 
character of this epistle, which was asserted by some ; Clement 
of Alexandria distinctly says, it was the epistle of Barnabas, 
the apostle,j) and refers to it as to an authority by many quota- 



*) Hist. Eccl. Ill, 25. 
f) Hist. Eccl. IV. 14. 
%) Strom. II. 6, 7, 15, 18. 



22 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

tions. Origen calls it an " epistola catholica" which probably 
means a canonical epistle.*) So much however is (even by 
the adversaries) admitted that this epistle was written early in 
the second century. f) Now in this epistle we read : " Adtenda- 
mus ergo, ne forte, sicut scriptum est, multi vocati, pauci elec- 
ti inveniamur." Let us be attentive to ourselves, lest perhaps 
we may be found (wanting) as it is written, many are called — 
few chosen. This sentence " multi vocati, pauci electi," is no- 
where found in Scripture, except twice in the gospel of St. 
Matthew, namely : chap. 20, 16, and chap. 22, 14. Hence it 
is evident that the author of this epistle has known the gospel of 
St. Matthew. Yet the hypercritics of our time, as Credner 
and others, objected to the conclusions drawn from this quota- 
tion, that the words " sicut scriptum est" as it is written, are 
merely the gloss of a copyist, and therefore not genuine ; the 
sentence "raulti vocati, pauci electi," as other sentences of Christ 
in the writings of the apostolic age, has not been derived from 
a written document, but from oral tradition. It was difficult to 
refute this objection, as we had not any longer the Greek text of 
this passage of the epistle, but only a latin translation. But late- 
ly the learned Tischendorf, a protestant, has discovered a most 
remarkable codex of the Bible in the convent of St. Catharine, 
on the mount Sinai, in which also the Epistle of St. Barnabas 
is contained in the Greek original, the disputed words " sicut 
scriptum est" are found in the original text, and by this, as 
Tischendorf remarks, it is evidently shown, that already in 
the first quarter of the second century, the gospel of St. Mat- 
thew was not only existing, and generally known in the church, 
but was considered to be canonical. J) 



*) A. Hilgenfeld, though he denies the authorship of Barnabas, calls 
the epistle a remarkable document of the Alexandrian Church, probably 
towards the end of the first century. Die Apostolischen Vaeter, p. 46. 

j) The whole passage, according to thejtext of the Cod. Sinait. runs thus : 
i ' UpooExupev, fi^TTore, ag ytypairTai, tto/Iol kXijtoI, bliyoi 6e eIektol, evpE&c)ftsv> 
Of, Matth. 20, 16, 14. Katholische Literatur Zeitung, Jahrg. 9, n. 45. 

X) Cont. Celsum. 1, 63, o. f. de Princip. Ill, 2 n. 4, Exp., in Rom. n. 23. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 23 

7. As we see from the testimonies of Papias and St. Ire- 
naeus, it is a very ancient tradition, that St. Matthew has 
written his gospel in Hebrew, or rather in the so-called Ara- 
maic dialect, spoken by the Jews at the time of Christ. Eu- 
sebius*) and St. Jerom relate, that Pantaenus, wljio founded the 
catechetical school of Alexandria, and was the predecessor 
and master of Clement of Alexandria, found the gospel of St. 
Matthew in Hebrew, among the Indians of the East, to whom, 
he was told, it had been brought by the apostle St. Bartholo- 
mew ; he took it thence to Alexandria. Origen quotes pas- 
sages of the Hebrew text. Eusebius speaks on three different 
occasions of the supposed translator from the Hebrew into 
Greek ; St. Cyrill of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius and St. Chry- 
sostom repeat the same ; and St. Jerom says in one passage : 
" Matthew composed the gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters 
and words ; who afterwards has translated it into Greek, is not 
sufficiently certain. Moreover the Hebrew gospel itself is kept 
to the present day, in the library of Cesarea, which has been 
founded with exceeding zeal by Pamphilus, the martyr. To 
myself, also, permission was given to copy it by the Xazarei, 
who use this book in Beroea, a city of Syria, "f) 

Yet, nevertheless, this ancient tradition, so strongly warrant- 
ed by the most reliable authorities, has been called into ques- 
tion by Erasmus of Rotterdam in the 16th century, and after 
him by other modern writers, down to the learned L. Hug of 
our times. Because the Hebrew text is not now a-days extant, 
it was asserted, the text of this Hebrew gospel to which the 
ancient authors refer, was quite different from the text of the 
Greek gospel of St. Matthew ; St. Jerom, they say, whilst he 
praises highly on one occasion the Hebrew gospel, made no use 
of it in his corrections of the translation of the X. T. Origen 
frequently refers to it, but he ascribes sometimes very little 



*) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. V, 10. 
f) St. Hieronym. de Vir. ill. 63. 



24 AUTHENTICITY OP THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

authority to it. St. Epiphanius calls it, at one time authentic, 
but at another time just the reverse. Moreover, they say, in 
the age of the apostles the Greek language was universally 
known and spoken in Palestine, so that there was no necessity 
of a gospel in Hebrew, and finally, they add, if the gospel of 
St. Matthew had been written in Hebrew, the interpretation of 
Hebrew words could not be accounted for, and much less the 
fact, that the author of the holy book would have given the 
quotations from the Old Testament, not according to the read- 
ing of the Hebrew text, but of the ancient Greek translation 
of the Septuagint. 

To these objections we answer, first in general, that as we 
have here a question, of a historical fact, testified by the unan- 
imous consent of the most reliable authors, who state in the 
most definite expressions, to have seen, read, translated and 
examined the Hebrew original of this gospel, their testimony 
must be held of much greater weight, than all conjectures, de- 
rived from any internal difficulties of the book ; otherwise, all 
historical evidence is at once set at naught, and no history 
would be possible any longer. Hence the protestant theolo- 
gian, Isaac Vossius, observes : "I understand that some rabbi- 
nistic half-theologians trample under foot the testimonies of all 
the fathers, and all the churches, and assert seriously, that Mat- 
thew has not written in Hebrew, but in Greek; yet," he con- 
tinues, " we would be fools, if we would answer anything to 
their dreams."*) More condescending, however, than Vossius, 
we will shortly enter on the principal objections of our adver- 
saries. What refers to the contradictions, observed in the tes- 
timonies of the ancient authors, we answer, that these contra- 
dictions are only apparent, the quoted authors referring, in 
different passages, to a different text of the Hebrew gospel ; 
for the pure text of the Hebrew was soon interpolated by some 
additions, derived from oral tradition, as we see it in some quo- 



Is. Voss. Praef. Append, in libr. de Sept. Interpr. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 25 

tations from the Hebrew text extant, in the writings of the 
fathers ; hence, even the gospel, as it was preserved down to 
to the 4th century by the Nazaraei, who were, most probably, 
no heretics, did not entirely agree with the Greek text, yet it 
contained no manifest error, and was, therefore, considered to be 
of good authority ; but at the same time, the Hebrew text was 
quite differently treated by the Ebionites, and other heretics 
of Jewish tendency ; under their hands the Hebrew gospel be- 
came entirely corrupted and adapted to their false doctrines, 
wherefore it was of no authority any more. Of this corrupt- 
ed text we have, no doubt, to understand those passages of the 
fathers, where they deny all authority to the Hebrew gospel. 

What is said of the universal use of the Greek language in 
Palestine, cannot be admitted to such an extent, since we know 
that the language of the people was the Aramaic ; it is certain 
from the gospels, that our Lord spoke Aramaic, and St. Paul 
defended himself before the people in the same language.*) 

The Greek interpretation of the Hebrew names may be add- 
ed by the translator, without prejudice to a correct and faith- 
ful translation. The passages from the Old Testament are in 
this gospel, mostly not literally quoted, but only according to 
the sense ; seven of them are nearer to the Hebrew text, than 
to the Greek of the Septuagint ; three of them agree perfectly 
with the Septuagint, but in these three instances the Greek 
translation agrees also with the Hebrew text. St. Jerom, 
therefore, is of the opinion, that the Greek text of St. Mat- 
thew quoted rather from the Hebrew text, than from the Greek. 
Hence we conclude, that the Hebrew gospel of St. Matthew 
cannot be called in question, from any solid reason ; our pres- 
ent Greek text is a translation. 

8. In connection with the foregoing question, we have to 
ask, by whom and at what time the Greek translation of the 
Hebrew original has been made ? Papias seems to have known 



*) Acts 22; 2. 



26 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

more than one translation ; for he adds in the passage quoted 
above : " Every one interpreted them, (the words of the gos- 
pel,) as he was able."*) Moreover, from the supposition that 
St. Mark and St. Luke, in writing their gospels, have derived, 
in many passages, their equal Greek diction, from the Greek 
Gospel of St. Matthew, it would follow that the translation 
which we have in the N. T., is of a very high age ; however, 
this supposition is subjected to grievous doubts, and therefore, 
any conclusions derived from it, must be very dubious. The 
words of Papias, well considered, might rather have the sense 
that there was no fixed and authorized translation at his time, 
wherefore every one interpreted the Hebrew as well as he was 
able. Hence we must confess, that neither the time of the 
translation, nor the name of the translator can be ascertained. 
9. A most important controversy is carried on, to this very 
day, about the time when St. Matthew has written his Hebrew' 
gospel. From the references, quoted above, it appears to be 
an indisputed tradition, that St. Matthew wrote his gospel be- 
fore he left Palestine, in order to preach the gospel, also, to 
other nations. Eusebius, moreover, states by the authority of 
Apollonius (about 180 A. Ch.,) that the apostle went among the 
gentiles twelve years after the ascension of the Lord ; from this 
it would follow that St. Matthew wrote his gospel not many 
years after the ascension ; this opinion is moreover confirmed 
by a great number of Greek manuscripts, to which the remark 
has been added, that this gospel has been written eight years 
after the ascension. But against this tradition stands the full 
authority of St. Irenaeus,f) who states in the most definite 

*) 'Upiievevce 6'avra, ug r]v 6warbg EKacrog. 

f) Iren. adv. haeres. Ill, In. 1, '0 fiev 6?} MartfaZof evrolg 'E t 3pcuoig rij 161a 6c- 
aAeuru avrcjv ml ypayyv e^r/veyKev evayye?uov, rov Uerpov <al rov UavAov kv 'Fu/urf 
evayye?uC,ojj,ho)v ml ■&e l ue?aovvTG)v r?)v kKKArjciav. Mera 6e rr/v rovrcov e^o6ov Md- 
picog 6 [ia-&r]rrjg ml epfxevevrrjg Uerpov ml avrbg ra vrto Uerpov K^pvcao/xeva eyypd. 
yog ijixiv 7rapa6e6o)K£V ml Aovmg 6e, 6 dic6?.ov&og UavAov rb vif ktcelvov tc7/pvoG. 
6/uevov evayyeltov kv fiiffaia mre-&ero. 'Erretra 'luavvvg 6 l ua-&rjri)g rov avpiov . 
. . ml avrbg k%e6o>Ke rb evayyelxov kv 'E^eco rf/g 'Acme 6tarpli3uv. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 27 

terms, that St. Matthew wrote his gospel at the time when St. 
Peter and St. Paul, together, preached the gospel at Rome. 
Now St. Peter and St. Paul were not together at Rome before 
63 — 6d, and hence it would follow from this passage, that our 
gospel was not written before 63 or 65 A. Ch. To this testimony 
of St. Irenaeus, may be added some remarks, occurring in the 
gospel, which seems to confirm such a late date of its origin. 
Thus we find in chap. 27, v. 8, remarked, that the potter's 
field, bought for tne price of the blood, is called , hacel-dama, 
that is, the field of blood, even to this day. In chap. 25, v. 5, 
the author finds it necessary to inform his readers of a custom, 
that existed at the time of our Lord's passion, namely : That 
upon the solemn day, the governor was accustomed to release 
to the people a prisoner, whomsoever they would. Such re- 
marks appear quite unnatural to an author who wrote only a 
few years after the said event happened. On both sides of 
the question, the reasons are so strong and definite, that it 
seemes utterly impossible to come to any conclusion. Patritius 
in his most learned work on the gospels, endeavors by all means 
to establish the first opinion of an early date of this gospel ; 
but the testimony of St. Irenaeus stands, after all that he has 
said about it, according to our humble judgment, against his 
desired conclusion. Reithmeyer is of the same opinion as 
Patritius ; but A. Maier and Haneberg, two other catholic 
theologians, are decidedly against it.*) One thing appears 
strange to us: Eusebius, who quotes this passage of St. Ire- 
naeus,f) pays no regard to it, when speaking of this question; 
did he understand it in such a sense, that it caused no difficul- 
ty to the statement given by him? 



*) Doellinger " Christenthuni unci Kirche " says p. 132, moreover St. Ire- 
naeus relates, that Matth. -wrote Ms gospel when he was about leaving Pales- 
tine, and this coincides with the time when Peter and Paul preached the 
gospel in Rome, hence between 63—67 A. Ch. The gospel has been written, at 
any rate, before the destruction of Jerusalem. 

f) Hist, Eccl. V. 8, A.Maier. p. 35. 



28 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

XL — The Gospel according to St. 3IarJc. 

1. The question who is that St. Mark, to whom the second 
gospel is ascribed, has has been controverted lately again. 
Patritius endeavors to show in an extensive dissertation, that 
the disciple of St. Peter, whom this apostle mentions in his 
first epistle, calling him "Mark, mj son"* is not identical with 
John, surnamed Mark, of whom we read in the Acts of the 
apostlesf that he was the son of Mary, of Jerusalem, in whose 
house the faithful used to meet, and whither St. Peter went, 
having been delivered from the prison. J From this supposed 
difference between Mark, the disciple of Peter, and John Mark, 
the same author draws then the conclusion, that not John 
Mark, mentioned repeatedly in the Acts, and the epistles of 
St. Paul,§ is the author of the second gospel, but the other 
Mark, called by St. Peter his spiritual son. The principal 
reasons for this opinion are: 1) The difference in the name, 
because the Mark of the Acts is not called simply Mark, but 
John, who is surnamed Mark. 2) The statements which we 
read in the Acts of John Mark, do not well agree with the 
traditions which we read in the authors of the first centuries 
on that St. Mark who wrote the second gospel; he is said to 
have been in a most intimate relation to St. Peter and to have 
followed him to Koine at a very early period, where he also 
wrote his gospel ; moreover the same Mark, who is the author 
of the second gospel, is represented by the tradition to be the 
founder of the church of Alexandria at such a time, which can- 
not be reconciled with the statements of the Acts on John 
Mark. Yet the first reason seems to us rather weak ; and to 
the second we answer that the traditions referred to, are of a 
later date, and partly contradictory whence no certain conclu- 
sion can be derived. The common opinion, therefore, that 



* Eps. i. St. Peter, ch. 5. v. 13. 

f Acts. 12 ch. v. 12. 25 ch. 15. v. 37, 13. v. s. 13- cli. 15. 

% Acts. 12. 12. 

I Coloss 4. 10. 2. Tim. 4. 11. Philein. 24. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 29 

there is no difference between the Mark mentioned by St. Peter, 



and the John Mark of the Acts of the apostles, remains un- 
shaken in our judgment; and conseqently we say, John, the 
son of Mary, who is surnamed Mark, is the author of the se- 
cond gospel. 

2. By Joseph of Cyprus, who, by the apostles was surnamed 
Barnabas,*) that is, son of consolation, perhaps on account of 
his heart winning eloquence, and whose near relationf) John 
Mark was, the disciple of St. Peter came also in a nearer 
connection with St. Paul. When the great apostle set out 
with Barnabus on his first tour to preach the gospel among 
the gentiles, St. Mark was admitted as a companion, 
and followed them, first to Antioch, and then to Cyprus, about 
the year 43 A. Ch. ; but when they had come to Perge in Pam- 
phylia, he, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem, perhaps 
dismayed by the great trials and hardships of the apostolical 
labors. Having arrived at Jerusalem, and finding there St. 
Peter, his spiritual father, either already departed or ready to 
to depart, he went with St. Peter, or after him, to Rome in the 
year 44 or 45 A. Ch.,J) for it cannot be denied, neither that St. 
Peter, so early as this came to Rome, that is to say, in the first 
years of Claudius, nor that, according to Papias and other 
witnesses, St. Mark followed St. Peter as his interpreter. 
About six years after, 50, A. Ch., Barnabas, when St. Paul 
wished to visit together with him the brethren in all the cities, 
wherein they had preached before, would have taken with them 
John also, that was surnamed Mark ; but Paul desired that he 
(as having departed from them out of Pamphylia, and not gone 
with them to the work ; ) might not be received. And there 
arose a dissension, so that they departed, one from another, 
and Barnabas, indeed, taking Mark, sailed to Cyprus, §) his 



*) Act. 4, 36; 15, 13. 

f) Coloss. 4. 10. aviijjioc, nephew or cousin. 

X) Euseb, Hist. Ec.cl. I. 13. 17. 

3) Act. 15, 37. 38. 



30 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

native country. About the year 60 or 61, when Paul was in 
Rome, he admitted Mark again to his society with much com- 
mendation ;*) he writes to Timothy to bring John Mark along 
from Ephesus to Rome, whither he also really came, and when 
he set out afterward, to Colosse in Phrygia, Paul recommended 
him to the Collossians. Moreover it is the unanimous tradition 
of antiquity, that St. Mark founded the church of Alexandria ; 
but whether this was done before or after the death of St. 
Peter, is not certain. f) 

3.) For the fact that St. Mark, the disciple of St. Peter, and 
partly, also, of St. Paul, is the author of the second gospel, 
we have the testimonies of Papias and of Clement of Alex- 
andria, preserved by Ensebins.J) Papias, referring to John, 
the presbyter of Ephesus, says : tv Mark, the interpreter of 
Peter, has written exactly that which has been said and done 
by Christ, as much as he retained in his memory, (from the 
preaching of Peter,) yet not in order ; for he has neither heard 
the Lord, nor followed him, but, as I said, afterwards, Peter, 
who used to teach according to the circumstances, and not as 
one who intended a regular composition of the words of the 
Lord ; hence Mark committed no fault, writing a part of 
them so, as he remembered them : for of one thing he took care, 
that is, to omit nothing of what he had heard, and not to fal- 
sify anything in them." 

The testimony of Clement of Alexandria, confirms and en- 
larges somewhat the foregoing; we read: "When Peter preached 



*) Ep. 2. Tim. 4. 11. Philem. 24. Coloss. 4, 10. 

f) Euseb, H.. eccl, I. 1G. Epiphan, Haer. 51, 6 Hieronym de vi. illust. 1. 
8. St. Jerom says: Mortuus est octavo Neronis anno (i. e. 62 A. D.) et sep- 
ultus est Alexacdriae, succedente sibi Aniano. Euseb, however (H. eccl. ii. 
24.) from whom St. Jerom derives his notice, says nothing of the death of 
St. Mark, but mentions only the succession of Annianus, whence it may be 
concluded, that St. Jerom mistook the words of Eusebius and that St. Mark 
did not die at that time, but resigned before his death the new erected see 
to Annianus, his successor. Eeithm. p 379. 

%) Euseb. H. Eccl. Ill, 39, VI. 14, II. 15, Maier. A. p. 52, n. 1. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 31 

publicly the word, and announced the gospel by the Spirit, those 
present in great numbers, requested Mark, as he had followed 
Peter for a long time, and kept in his memory what he (Peter) 
preached, to write it down, and having written the gospel, to 
give it to them who requested him. Peter, apprised of it, did 
directly, neither prevent, nor encourage it.*) To this we add 
the most disputed testimony of St. Irenaeus, who says: " Af- 
ter the departure (death) of them, (of Peter and Paul) Mark, 
the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also has written the 
preaching (to. Ktpv&aofisva.) of the gospel, and bequeathed it to 
us."f) We pass over in silence, the testimonies of St. Justin 
M., of Origen, of St. Jerom, of Augustin and others. J) 

4. But a difficulty, whether the second gospel of our canon- 
ical books be identical with the gospel of which Papias speaks, 
has been raised, from one of his remarks on it, which says 
Mark has not written in (good) order, h rd?«, whilst in the 
second gospel, as we possess it now, no defect of order can be 
shown. To this objection, we have a twofold answer : 1) If we 
understand the h zd^ec, of Papias of the chronological order, 
it can be understood without violence to the text of a part of 
this gospel — not of the whole; and this certainly can be proved, 
that the second gospel does not all through observe the chro- 
nological order. 2) We can, moreover, take h '-&&, in another 
sense, understanding it of the order of arrangement, as we find 
it in the first gospel, joining together similar deeds and ser- 
mons of the Lord, tending to the same end. Hence the iden- 



*) Maier. p. 69, 3. Eusb. H. E. VI, 14. 

f) Iren. adv. Haer. III. 1, n 1., quoted above. Reithm. p. 386. 

%) Quotations of this gospel are less to be found in the -writings of the fath- 
ers, than of St. Matthew : probably because St. Mark is shorter, and con- 
tains nearly the same -words and deeds of Christ, as the first gospel. How- 
ever, there is one quotation of importance in Justin M. ; he mentions that 
the Lord has changed besides Peters, also two other apostles' names, name- 
ly : of John and James, who were called boanerges, what means ''sons of 
thunder," an incident nowhere mentioned in the gospels, except St. Mark, 
Chap. 3, 17. 



32 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

tity of our second gospel, with the gospel ascribed to Mark by 
Papias, cannot be endangered by the objection stated. 

5. The authenticity, however, of the last twelve verses of 
this gospel have been seriously called in question, since they 
were wanting in some manuscripts already, at the time of St. 
Jerom, as we see in his epistle to Hedibia, who asked him how 
the apparent contradiction between Mark 16, 9, and Matth. 
28, 1, is to be solved. St. Jerom answered, that nearly the 
whole chapter is missing in the Greek manuscripts ; according 
to Eusebius,*) it was wanting even in most of the manuscripts 
of his time. Yet St. Irenaeus refersf) expressly to the 19 v. 
of this chapter; moreover, if the last twelve verses be spu- 
rious, the gospel would be without a proper conclusion. The 
old translations, also, contain these verses. The difficulty, 
mentioned by St. Jerom, had brought them into some disrepute, 
so that they were first omitted in the public reading, and con- 
sequently, also, in some manuscripts entirely expunged. 

5. With the exception of St. Chrysostom,J) all the fathers 
agree in this, that this gospel has been written at Rome, and 
for the Roman christians, what is moreover confirmed, by some 
latin words, 1 1) used in this gospel, and by the explanations of 
Jewish customs. §) But the same inextricable difficulty, as in 
regard to the first gosple, we meet, also, here again, about the 
time when the second gosple has been written ; for whilst the 
other fathers expressly state, or at least insinuate, that this 
gospel was written before the death of St. Peter, yes, even 
already, when he was the first time at Rome, about 45 or 46, 
we read in the passages cited above from St. Irenaeus, that it 
was written after the departure (that is, death) of Peter and 
Paul. Some of the modern authors supposed that the text of 



*) Ad. Marin, qu. 1, Angel. Mai. Script. Yet. nova collect, torn I. p. 61. 

f) St. Iren. adv. haeres, III, 10, 8. 

X) St. Chrysost. Horn, in Matth., " Mark wrote in Egypte." 

||) Mark 12, 42, KopddvTrjg, (quadrans,) nevTovpiuv, c~ekov}mt6>p. 

§) Mark 7, 2, u Kotvdiq x e P CLV > he adds" rovreanv aviTrrocg, ef 25, 42. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 33 

St. Irenaeus is corrupted, and offered a correction, to solve the 
difficulty ;*) others understand the Greek word, etjodog liter- 
ally "departure," in a different sense. f) To us, this question 
seems intimately connected with another one, namely : How 
far this gospel is dependent on St. Peter ; for though the de- 
pendence of it from this apostle is admitted by all, yet it is doubt- 
ful, whether it has been directly approved by St. Peter, or 
not. From the words of Papias, by which he excuses St. Mark, 
in regard to the manner of his writing, we might conclude that 
it was not directly approved by St. Peter, and scarcely even 
written at the life time of the apostle. J) The language, 
in which St. Mark wrote his gospel, is the Greek. Latin man- 
uscripts of this gospel, preserved at Venice and Prague, §) which 
were supposed to be autographs of St. Mark, led some to the 
opinion that St. Mark has written in latin; but A. Calmet 
already discredited these supposed autographs, and A. Maier 
says, it has been shown long ago, that these manuscripts of 
Venice and Prague are nothing more but a part of a latin codex 
of the four gospels, preserved at Friuli ; and contain nothing 
else, but the Vulgate of St. Jerom.||) 



"*)Haneberg p. 658, Christopherson, changed uera 6e ttjv tovtuv etjodov, 
into fiera de ttjv tovtov (ge. rod ~Evay-yeXiov rov Marfiaiov) ekSooiv. 

f)Patrit. suggests to understand e^odog not of the death of the apostles, 
but of their departure from Jerusalem, to preach among the Gentiles. I p. 
39. 

J)Clemens Alex, in Euseb. H. E. VI, 14, 7, remarks, that Peter hearing of 
St. Mark's writing a gospel, neither prevented nor encouraged it. St. Je- 
rom, however, says " Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri juxta quod Pe- 
trum referentem audierat rogatus Romae a fratribus, breve scripsit Evan- 
gelium. Quod cum Petrus audisset, probavit et Ecclesiae legendum sua au- 
ctoritate edidit," (de Vir. ill. 8.) 

§) Haneberg p. 659. 

||) Calmet. proleg, ad Marc. p. 50. A. Maier, p. 86. 

3 



34 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

III. — The Gospel according to St. Luke. 

1. St. Luke, abridged from Lucianus, as some manuscripts 
have it, was a native of Antioch, the capital of Syria,*) and is 
called by St. Paul "the Physician,"f) which profession is also 
indicated in the gospel by his use of technical terms, when speak- 
ing of diseases. He was probably from the gentiles, which 
may be derived from the Ep. to the Coloss. ch. 4, v. 10, 14, 
and if not a Greek by birth, certainly of Greek education, as 
his manner of writing and his language, though not always 
pure Greek, sufficiently indicate. Hence he follows if quoting 
the Old Testament, throughout the Greek translation of the 
Septuagint, even in those passages, in which this version differs 
from the Hebrew text, now extant. Probably he was converted 
to Christianity by St. Paul, when preaching the gospel in Anti- 
och ; some infer from the exact knowledge of the Mosaic law 
and the Jewish customs which he shows in his writings, that he 
was a proselyte to the Mosaical law, before he became a christ- 
ian ; tradition, however, does not confirm this conjecture, and 
what is said by some, of his being expert in the art of painting, 
is not well founded neither in antiquity. 

2. From the Acts of the apostles, and the epistles of St. 
Paul, J) we know that St. Luke accompanied St. Paul on his 
mission among the gentiles ; yet at what time he joined the 
apostle, is somewhat disputed. Some believe, he adhered to 
him from the time of his conversion ; some maintain with greater 
probability, that he became not the companion of the apostle 
before his coming the second time to Troas, alleging for their 
assertion, Acts, 16, 10. where St. Luke, the author of the 
Acts, at once uses in speaking of St. Paul and his companions, 
the first person in the plural number what he had never done 
before. §) When Paul and Silas were apprehended, beaten and 

*) Euseb. H. E. III. 4. 

f) Ep. Coloss. 4, 14. 

+ ) Acts. 15. 9. 10. 2. Tim. 4. II. Phil. v. 23, 24. Coloss. 4, 14. 

|) Acts 16, 10, "and as soon as he had seen the vision, immediately we 



THE GQSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE. 35 

put in prison, St. Luke speaks again in the third person, and 
also, when he mentions their departure from Philippi, whence we 
may safely conclude, that St. Luke was neither imprisoned, nor 
did he depart from Philippi with St. Paul, Silas and Timothy 
(ch. 17, v. 14,) but was left there, as afterwards Silas and 
Timothy at Berea. The communicative form of the narration is 
resumed again in ch. 20, v. 5, and continued, nearly without 
interruption, to the end of the Acts ; wherefrom we infer, that 
St. Luke had remained in Philippi, until St. Paul returned 
from his third journey to Jerusalem, in the year 58 A. Ch. so 
that he would have been at Philippi about eight years. After- 
wards St. Luke seems to have been continually with the apos- 
tle,*) near to the time of the death of St. Paul, following him 
to Jerusalem, Cesarea and Rome, a period of about six or seven 
years. After the death of the Apostle, we have but dubious tra- 
ditions on St. Luke ; it is uncertain, when and where he died. 
The Roman Martyrology lets him die in Bithynia, probably a 
natural death. f) According to Sedulius he died in Achaia, 
seventy-four years old. J) 

3. To this St. Luke are ascribed the third gospel, and the 
Acts of the apostles, which two books make, strictly speaking, 
but one work, divided in two parts. §) Tertullian writes : " I 
say that not only with the apostolic churches, as Corinth, Phil- 
ippi and others, but with all churches that are in sacred corn- 



sought to go into Macedonia, being assured that God had called us to preach 
the gospel to them." 

*) The Muratorian fragment says of St. Luke " Lucas iste medicus post 
ascensum Christi cum eum Paulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum adsuni- 
sisset," Dr. Aberle derives from this passage, that St. Luke was at the side 
of the Apostle as an attorney at law. Tubing, quartalsch, 1863, n, i. p, 94. 

f) Sedulius, argum. in Lucam, says : Hie (Lucas) primitus Apostolorum 
discipulus postea Paulum magistrum gentium quasi gentilis et virgo virginem 
secutus fuerat," Coll. nov, vol, 9. p, 977. 

%) SeduMus c. o. 

g) Some ascribe to St Luke, also, the translation of the epistle to the He- 
brews. 



36 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

munion with these, this gospel of Luke was known from the 
beginning of its publication, which we defend by all means. *) 
St. Irenaeus, enumerating the authors of the four gospels, re- 
marks of Luke: "And Luke, the follower of St. Paul, laid 
down in a book the gospel preached by him, (the apostle. )"f) 

Clement of Alexandria, J) Origen,§) and Eusebius testify the 
same. In the works of St. Justin M., we find frequent quota- 
tions from this gospel. ||) A peculiar celebrity accrued to the 
same by the predilection, which the heretics, especially Marci- 
on, had for it, as Tertullian and Epiphanius relate, yet they 
curtailed and mutilated it according to their purposes, whence 
Marcion was called the "Pontic mouse," for having gnawed 
this gospel. If) Not less constant, than on the authorship of St. 
Luke, is the tradition of his dependency on St. Paul, similar 
to that of St. Mark on St. Peter. St. Luke is called the fol- 
lower, the disciple of Paul, and St. Paul again the master, the 
Illuminator of Luke ;**) yes, some ascribed the work of Luke 
directly to Paul ;ff) and Origen says the third gospel, accord- 
ing to St. Luke, is the one that is approved by Paul.JJ) Euse- 
bius already mentions, that some were of the opinion, that in 
all passages of the epistles of St. Paul, where he uses the 
phrase " according to my gospel," he refers to this gospel of 
St. Luke.§§) Contradictory, however, to this constant tradition, 



*) Tertull. adv. Marc. 4,5, "Dico itaque apud illas necjain solas apostolicas. 
sed apuduniversas, quae illis de societate sacramenti confoederantur, id Evan- 
gelium Lucae ab initio editionis suae stare, quod cum maxirne tueinur." 

f) Irenaeus adv. haeres III, 1. 

t) Strom. 121, p. 407. 

$) Homil. I, in Luc. 

||) Justin. M. Apolog. 31, 33. Dialog. 100, 103. 

![) Tertull. adv. Marc. IV, 2, Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse. quern caederet, 
contraria 

**) Tertull. I.e. Irenaeus 1. c. 

ff) Tertull. 1. c. Nam et Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere solent- 

tt) Orig. ap. Euseb. Eccl. H., VI, 25. 

§§) In 1 Timoth. 5, 18, we read': For the Scripture saith: "Thou shall not 
muzzle an ox, that treadeth out the corn.' 7 And : u The laborer is worthy of 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE. 37 

seems to be what we read in the first verse of our gospel itself; 
for thus we read : " For as much as many have taken in hand, 
to put together a narrative of the things accomplished among 
us, according as they who from the beginning were eye-wit- 
nesses, and ministers of the word, have delivered to us, it seem- 
ed good to me also, having diligently traced all things from the 
beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus." 
But to any objection, drawn from this passage, we answer, that 
if the apostle himself, though he had received his gospel by 
immediate revelation, laid before the other apostles*) the gos- 
pel which he preached among the gentiles, it was not contra- 
dictory for St. Luke, writing a narrative of the things accom- 
plished, to consult besides the apostle's preaching, also other 
eye-witnesses, and to mention this at the beginning of his gos- 
pel, in order to obviate all reasonable doubt, on the reliability 
of his composition, as he himself was no eye-witness ; yet that 
much may be granted, that St. Luke in his narrative, is not 
so entirely dependent on St. Paul, as St. Mark appears to be 
on St. Peter. 

4. In regard to the time when this gospel was written, we 
meet again different opinions. Patritius holds, 1) that this 
gospel was written in Greece between 48 — 53. 2) that it was 
dedicated to the Roman church, as Theophilus was a Roman; 
3) that St. Luke made a free use (excribendis iis) of the preced- 
ing gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, though following in 
Iris composition a plan of his own. To these conjectures we are 
opposed by the following reasons ; 1) St. Luke cannot be proved 
to have adhered to St. Paul before the year 50, A. Ch. and then, 
being only a short while beside the apostle, he remained 

his hireP Is the second part of the verse, namely the-laborer, etc., also a 
quotation from Scripture ? But the sentence referred to, is no where to be 
found in the Old Testament, but only in Matth. 10, 10. and Luke 10, 7. Es- 
tius, however, thinks only the first part of v. 18, is a quotation, to which the 
apostle added a proverb, used in the common life, like Christ himself did in 
the passages referred to. for the sentence is a dictate of natural reason. 
*) Galat. 2, 2. 



38 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

undoubtedly in Philippi, separated again from the apostle, 
until the year 58, A. Ch. Now it must be quite improbable that 
St. Luke could be considered to have written the gospel of St. 
Paul, as the fathers unanimously maintain, already 48 or 53 A. 
Ch. having then been only for a very short while the companion 
of St. Paul. 2) That this gospel has been dedicated to the 
Roman church at such an early period, seems to be altogether 
improbable ; we have nothing to rely on for an acquaintance 
of St. Luke with a Roman or with the church of Rome at that 
time ; it is moreover very doubtful, whether Theophilus was a 
Roman at all. 3) That St. Luke made such a free use of the 
other gospels, especially of St. Mark, seems to be entirely 
against the first verses of the gospel. Besides these negative 
reasons, there are some positive facts that establish a later time 
for the origin of this gospel. 1) As we have said, this gospel and 
the Acts of the apostles formed one work, divided into two 
parts, and hence it is most probable, that both parts were writ- 
ten about the same time ;*) the Acts, however, cannot have 
been written before the year 63 or 64 A. Ch.f) 2) The same 
testimony that St. Irenaeus gives for the time of the origin of 
the second gospel, he gives also for the third, hence, after the 
death of the apostles Peter and Paul. A difficulty, however, 
arises from the end of the Acts, where nothing is said of the 
death of St. Paul, so that it has the appearance, as if the Acts 
had been completed before that time. Reithmeier thinks that 
St. Luke, having finished his work already after the two years 
imprisonment of St. Paul, and having probably departed from 
Rome, did not publish it until the time when St. Paul underwent 
martyrdom, (63 — 65 A. Ch.) A. Maier places it down to 67, 
A. Ch. somewhat before the destruction of Jerusalem. 



* ) Calmet already remarks. Estius in 2. cor. and Grotius in his preface to 
St. Luke suppose, that the year when this gospel was written is the same as 
the Acts, namely about 63, A. Ch. 

f) Reithm. p, 386. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. 39 

IV. — The Gospel according to St. John. 

1. St. John, according to tradition the celebrated author of 
the fourth gospel, was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of the 
sea or lake of Genesareth, probably at Bethsaida. His mother 
was Salome, and belonged to the pious women who ministered 
to the Lord, (Mark, 15, 41). John and his brother James, called 
the Greater, followed, like the brothers, Simon and Andrew, 
the trade of their father.*) When John, the Baptist, com- 
menced to preach penance in Perea, John, the son of Zebedee, 
became a disciple of the precursor, until Jesus was shown to 
him and to Andrew, to be the expected Messiah, whence they 
followed Jesus themselves and caused others to follow him ; 
namely, Simon, called Peter, Philip, and Nathaniel (Bartholo- 
mew.) One year after (Luke 5, 10. Matth. 4, 21,) they were 
called by the Lord a second time, and not long after (Luke 6, 
13.) they were chosen from the increasing number of the disci- 
ples for the higher vocation of apostles, among whom John is 
named once as the second, (Acts 1, 13.) after Peter, other 
times as the third or fourth. With Peter and James, his 
brother, he appears in the gospel in a nearer relation to 
the Lord than the other apostles, and enjoyed one privilege 
above all of them, that is, to be the "disciple whom the Lord 
loved." He alone abandoned not his master during His passion 
and death ; as a reward for this faithfulness the Virgin Mother 
of the Son of God was bequeathed to him as his own mother. 

2. After the ascension of our Lord, he appears always in 
intimate union with Peter. He preaches and suffers with him 
for the name of Jesus, he is sent with him to Samaria. (Acts. 3, 
1 — 4. 21. 8, 14.) St. Paul calls John, with Cephas and James 



*) Patritius characterizes therefore the style of St. John as that of an 
unlettered man, saying "Quandoquidem, cum longius hi sermones excurrunt, 
turn abruptum in iis deprehenditur dicendi genus, iisdem sententiis saepe repe- 
titis ac deficiente plerumque ordine ac serie discursus, id vero eum omnino 
prodit qui humaniore eloquutione destitutus alicuius sermones a se auditos 
referre memoriter studet." I. p, 95 



40 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

the Just, the Pillars of the Church. (Gal. 2, 9.) How long he 
remained in Palestine, cannot be stated exactly. In the year 
50 A. Ch., when Paul came to Jerusalem, he was there ; but 
when the same apostle returned to Jerusalem again about 58, 
A. Ch., John is not mentioned any more. Hence we may 
infer that he came to Ephesus, (where we find him according to 
an unanimous tradition in the later part of his life,) about 59 
or 60 A. Ch. After the death of Peter and Paul ( 65—67) 
he came to Rome according to the common opinion, under the 
emperor Domitian, according to some authors perhaps earlier, 
already under Nero,*) where he was cast into a cauldron of boil- 
ing oil by order of the tyrant, whence he came out unhurt. 
Subsequently he was banished to the Isle of Patmos in the 
Archipelago, where he wrote the Apocalypse. Under the em- 
pire of Nerva he was allowed to return to Ephesus, where he 
died about the year 100, A. Ch., at the age of 94 years. f) 

3. The fourth gospel contains repeated indications of its author, 
by mentioning another disciple, or the disciple whom the Lord 
loved, who rested on His bosom, without ever giving the name 
of this disciple, J) and thus, therefore, insinuating, that this 
disciple is none else but the author of the gospel himself. The 
testimonies of the tradition reach up to the very life-time of the 
apostle ; St. Ignatius M, (died 107 A. Ch.) gives in his epistles 
references of this gospel, ||) St. Polycarp, a disciple of the apos- 
tle, gives a passage from the first epistle of St. John, If) which, 
as we shall see below, is in the nearest connection with our 



*) Tertull. de Praesc. 6, 36. Clemens of A. and Origen speak of the fact, 
but none of them gives the name of the Tyrant. Euseb. refers to Domitian, 
Theophyl.'to Nero, Epiphanius to Claudius. 

f) St. Hieron, de Virisill. c. 9. 

+ ) St. John, ch, 1. 41 : 18, 15, 20, 2—4, 21, 7, 20.— 19, 26.— 13. 23.— 21, 
20,-19,35. 21, 24. 

||) Ignat, ad Philad, 6, 7, cf loan 3, 8, ad Rom. c, 7. cf loan 6, 35, 51. 
ad Philad. c, 9, cf loan. 10, 7, 9. 

U") St. Polyc. ad Ph, c. 7. cf 1, loan, 4, 3. 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. 41 

gospel; the same we find of Papias,*) also a disciple of the 
apostle, and a friend of St. Polycarp. St. Justin M. (died 
163) shows evidently that he knew our gospel, f) and gives an 
almost literal quotation in his first apology. J) The first witness, 
however, who calls St. John expressly the author of our gos- 
pel, is Theopilus of Antioch, (a. 170,) who says in his apology 
against the Pagan Autolykus :§) " Thus, the scriptures and all 
divinely inspired men teach us, among whom John says : "In 
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," etc. 
St. Irenaeus of Smyrna, a disciple of St. Polycarp, writes : 
"Then John, the disciple who also rested on His bosom, has also 
brought forth {kj;b5aicn> edidit) the gospel, whilst staying in 
Ephesus in Asia."||) So also Clement of Alexandria^), the frag- 
ment of Muratori and Tertullian.**) Of the later fathers we 
give what one of them says, the others agreeing with him. St. 
Jerom writes in his work, de viris ill. c. 9 : " John, the apostle, 
whom the Lord loved most, the son of Zebedee, the brother of 
James the apostle, whom Herod beheaded after the passion of 
our Lord, has written as the last of all a gospel, requested by 
the bishops of Asia r rising up against Cerinthus and other 
heretics and especially against the doctrine of the Ebionites 
who assert, that Christ has not been before Mary." Even the 
heretics of the second century dared not to question the authen- 
ticity of this gospel, except the Marcionites and another small 
sect, called on this account by Epiphanius the " Alogi."ff) 
After such incontestible testimonies of antiquity, it will be 
superfluous to enter on the silly objections raised against this 
gospel by the rationalistic critics of our age. 



*") Ap. Euseb. H. E. Ill, 39. 

f) Justin apol. ii. c, 6. Dialog, c, 65 et 100. 
X) Justin, M. apol. i. c. 61, cf loan, 3, 4. 5. 

g) Theopil. ad Autol ii, 22. 

||) St. Irenae. adv. haeres. iii, 1, 1. 
fl) Ap. Euseb. H. E. vi, 14. 
**] Tertull. contra. Marc. 4. 2, 5. 
ff) Epiphan. Haer. 51. n, 3. 



42 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

4. Of some weight, however, seem to be the objections 
made against two parts of this gospel, namely ch. 7, v. 53 — ch. 
8, v. 11 and the last chapter, as being interpolations or additions 
by another hand. What regards the first passage, there are, 
no doubt, the best critical documents against it. The best 
manuscripts, together with the most ancient translations, the 
Peshito and the Itala, omit it entirely ; none of the Greek 
fathers, in their commentaries, treat this passage ; also the lan- 
guage seems somewhat to differ. But it was found in some 
manuscripts before the time of Origen ; the celebrated manu- 
script of Cambridge contains it and the Ethiopic and Armenian 
version translated it ; it is found in Tatian's Harmony of the 
gospels and in Ammonius. The Latin fathers, St. Ambrose, 
St. Jerom and St. Augustin, all mention it, and tell us the 
probable reason for which it has been omitted in many manu- 
scripts, namely through fear of encouraging in any way licen- 
tiousness, as the passage treats of the adulterous woman, whom 
Christ pardoned most mercifully.*) The objections against the 
last chapter are of a different character ; this chapter is con- 
tained in all manuscripts, and none of the fathers entertained 
any doubt on it. Hugo Grotius is the first who called its au- 
thenticity in question, on account of some difficulties contained 
in its text. He was followed by many critics afterwards down 
to the present day ; they say, the last verse of the 20th chapter 
clearly contains the conclusion of the whole gospel ; and more- 
over, the following 21st chapter presupposes that John was 
dead already, and indicates v. 24, distinctly, that this chapter 
has been added by others ; for thus we read : "This is the dis- 
ciple who giveth testimony of these things and has written these 
things, and ive know that his testimony is true." To this we 
answer, the last chapter may be called an addition to the whole 



*) St. August, de Conj. adult II. 7. "Hoc infidelium sensus exhorret, itaut 
normulli moclicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei metuentes peccandi 
impunitatem dari mulieribus suis illud quod de adulterae indulgentia 
Jesus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis." 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. 43 

gospel, yet not made after St John's death, or by another hand 
but by himself, for the purpose, to contradict a false rumor 
concerning his own person, as if he had not to die ; he could 
add this to his gospel the more, as it was connected with another 
manifestation of the Lord after His resurrection and with the pro- 
phecy on the death of Peter. The difficulty derived from v. 24, 
is commonly answered by saying, "St. John appeals, as it were, 
to his readers and unites them with himself in testimony by the 
figure which is called communication."*) Still a more satis- 
factory explanation, as it seems to us, has been derived from 
the most ancient tradition on the origin of our gospel. Clem- 
ent of Alexandriaf) says: "John at last perceiving that the som- 
atic (human) part of the Lord had been expounded in the other 
gospels, has written a pneumatic gospel through divine inspira- 
tion,* being moved by Ms friends." How these last words have to 
be understood, the author of the Muratorian fragment, of equal 
antiquity with Clement, explains to us in this manner : When 
his (John's) fellow-disciples (condiscipuli) and bishops urged him 
by their entreaties, he said : " Fast with me three days from 
this ; and what shall be revealed to each, we shall communicate 
one to another. In the same night it was revealed to Andrew 
of the number of the apostles, that under the acknowledgment 
of all (recognoscentibus cunctis) John ought to write all in his 
name."j) From this, we see that John was moved to write by 
condisciples, among whom was even an apostle, hence we have 
in this gospel, not only the testimony of St. John, but of more 
disciples together, St. John being at their head.§) In v. 24, 
this recognition of all (recognoscentibus cunctis) united with 
John, has been added to the gospel. This explanation of v. 24, 



*) Patritius 1. 1, p. 140,Kenrick on this passage, 
f) Ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 14. 
%) Cf St. Hieronym. Comm. in Matth. prolog. 

§) Cf loan. 1. 14, et nos vidimus, et ep. 1. loan. 1. 1. quod audivimus, 
quod vidimus. 



44 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

seems to be more natural, without in any way detracting from 
its inspired character or the authorship of St. John. 

5. All agree that St. John wrote last of all the Evangelists, 
after the death of St. Peter and St. Paul,*) and also after the 
destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, that is, after the year 
70, A. Ch. But how many years after, there is some difference 
of opinion ; Kenrick says, this gospel is more generally believed 
to have been written after his return from Patmos, about the 
year 98, in the first year of the emperor Trajan, the 65th after 
the ascension of our Lord, when the apostle was about 85 years 
of age. The authorities, however, for this opinion, are of little 
weight, f) for the same say also,'that St. John wrote his gospel 
while on the isle of Patmos, which is positively denied by St. 
Irenaeus. J) Considering, that at Ephesus those heresies, which 
St. John opposed by his gospel, commenced to spring up already 
towards the last days of St. Paul, and paying some attention 
to the Muratonian fragment, stating that some condisciples of 
St. John and St. Andrew were yet living at the time when 
this gospel was written, we would be more inclined to put its 
origin in the seventh, than the ninth, clecennium after Christ.§) 
The place where it was written is Ephesus, according to the 
best authorities. The autograph of this gospel is said to have 
been preserved at Ephesus until the time of Peter M., bishop 
of Alexandria, who died 311, A. Ch.||) Epiphanius remarks, 
that it was soon translated into Hebrew or Syriac ; a Hebrew 
copy was carefully preserved in his time in the library of Tiber- 
ias, on the sea of Galilee. 



*) Haneberg, however, supposes that the gospel was written before 
the death of the apostles, and only the 21st chapter added after St. Peter's 
death, to honor his memory, p. 677. 

f ) Epiphan. Haer. 51. 12, Psuedo-Athanas, opp. Ill, ed. Maur. p. 202. 
Hippolyt, de 12 apost. 

X) St. Iren. adv. Haer. Ill, 1. 1. 

$) Reithmeier p, 184, n, 4. 

||) Doellinger however puts its origin in the year 97 A. Ch. 7 Christenth. 
und Kirche. p. 135. 



ARTICLE II. 



THE IMMUNITY OF THE GOSPELS FROM ERRORS AND CONTRA- 
DICTIONS. 



V. — A General Comparison of the Four Gospels. 

1. The four Evangelists, as every body knows, treat in the 
main of the same subject, namely the life, passion, death and 
resurrection of Christ, our divine Redeemer ; but they do it, 
each in his own way. The greatest difference exists between 
the gospel of St. John, and the three other gospels. St. Luke 
goes furthest back in his narrative ; he relates, first, the concep- 
tion of the precursor of Christ, John the Baptist, then the con- 
ception of our Lord, the visitation by the blessed Virgin of 
Elizabeth, the birth of John and finally the birth of Christ, His 
circumcision, His presentation in the temple, and His coming 
to the temple again at the age of twelve years. St. Matthew 
begins with the genealogy of Christ, mentions shortly the con- 
ception and birth of Christ, and describes the arrival of the 
Magi, the massacre of the Innocents, the flight to Egypt and the 
return thence to Nazareth. St. Mark passes over in silence 
the early history of both, the Baptist and Christ ; he commences 
his gospel at once with the public preaching of the Baptist ; men- 
tions then, that Jesus was baptized by the precursor, and states 
in a few words the Theophany at the baptism of Christ, His fast- 
ing in the desert and the subsequent temptation, all of which 
we find also in St. Matthew and St. Luke, but more extensively 



46 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

described. Here an interval of time follows in the public life 
of Christ, comprising about one year, which is passed over in 
silence by all of the three first Evangelists. St. Matthew indi- 
cates distinctly this interruption. Having related the tempta- 
tion of Christ, he writes : "and when Jesus heard that John 
was delivered up (into prison), he retired into Galilee."*) The 
Baptist was not imprisoned immediately after the temptation, 
but nearly one year after, and hence we see clearly that all 
the time, between these two events, has been passed over in 
silence. But what was omitted by these three Evangelists, St. 
John supplied, at least partly, in his gospel. 

2. The fourth gospel begins with the exposition of the sub- 
lime doctrine on the Word made flesh, adding immediately 
the testimonies given by the Baptist, after the baptism of Jesus, 
not only for His divine mission as the expected Messiah, but also 
for His divine nature, in the words : " The same is He that shall 
come after me, that was made before me; because He was 
before me; Who baptiseth with the Holy Ghost, Who is the 
Lamb of God," In connection with these testimonies of the 
Baptist, we read then of the first vocation of disciples by 
Christ, of Andrew, John, Simon (Peter), Philip and Nathaniel, 
with whom Jesus came to the wedding in Cana of Galilee, 
where He wrought His first miracle ; after a short stay in Gali- 
lee, according to St. John's gospel, He went up to Jerusalem 
with His disciples, as the passover of the Jews was at hand, and 
remained in the holy city and around in the country of Judea, 
probably until the month of December, when, hearing that 
John the Baptist, who had come in the meantime to Ennon, 
near Salim, had been imprisoned, He returned through Samaria 
to Galilee, where He wrought another miracle at Cana, healing 
the son of a certain ruler. All this we read in the first four 
chapters of St. John, and thus he partly supplied, what, by the 






*) St. Mark ch, I. v. 14, writes : "and after John was delivered up, Jesus 
came into Galilee." 



GENERAL COMPARISON OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 47 

other Evangelists, had been entirely omitted ; we say "partly" 
for as St. John commonly gives the discourses of the Lord at 
large, the events of this period are rather treated in a sum- 
mary manner. 

3. At this point, about one year after Christ's baptism in 
the Jordan, the other three Evangelists take up again the 
interrupted series of their narrative, and continue it to the end, 
as it seems to us, without any other interruption, except that 
they omit to relate, that Christ, between this His return to Gal- 
ilee and the last passover of His passion, came thrice to Jeru- 
salem, and once in the neighborhood of it, to Bethania, to raise 
Lazarus to life again ; all of which, with the connected miracles 
and discourses, we only know by St. John. St. Luke, indeed, 
remarks that Jesus, soon after the transfiguration, set his face 
steadfastly to go to Jerusalem ; (ch. 9, v. 51.) and states imme- 
diately after, that He entered into a city of the Samaritans, 
who received Him not, because His face was of one going to 
Jerusalem (v. 53) ; in ch. 13, 22, we read again "and He went 
through the cities and towns, teaching and making His way to 
Jerusalem ;•" and finally in ch. 17, 11: "and it came to pass, as 
He was going to Jerusalem, He passed the midst of Samaria 
and Galilee;" moreover in ch. 10, v. 35 — 42. St. Luke relates, 
that He was received by Martha into her house, no doubt, at 
Bethania, near Jerusalem ; but after all this St. Luke, like St. 
Matthew and St. Mark, never says that the Lord ever came to 
Jerusalem during the whole period of his public life before the 
week of His passion, nor mentions anything of what He had done 
in Jerusalem before. Reversedly St. John is very short and ab- 
rupt in his statement, referring to the labors of the Saviour in 
Galilee ; besides the two miracles at Cana, he only speaks of one 
more, wrought in Galilee, that is the multiplication of the bread 
in a desert place, which is probably the only one, common to 
him with the other Evangelists. But in the last week finally, 
from the sixth day before the passover of the passion of Christ, 
St. John joins the other three Evangelists, to accompany as it 



48 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

it were with them the Lord in His last days until His death on 
the cross, and to add new strength, as an eye-witness, to the 
testimonies of the others on the resurrection, and the repeated 
apparitions of the risen Saviour. 

4. From this general comparison, we might be inclined to 
agree with those who say that the whole design of St. John, in 
writing his gospel, was to supply what has been omitted by the 
other Evangelists; yet this would, if not entirely false, at least be 
incorrect ; to supply the others, may have been in some instan- 
ces the secondary object of St. John, but certainly it was 
not his primary design ; in the last verse of the 20th chapter, 
the Evangelist pronounces the end for which he wrote, quite 
distinctly, saying : " But these things (signs) are written, that 
ye may believe, that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God, and that 
believing ye may have life everlasting in His name." Com- 
paring with this passage, what tradition states on the origin of 
this gospel, its sense will become unmistakable to us. Accord- 
to St. Irenaeus,*) St. Epiphaniusf) and St. Jerom,J) it has been 
written for the express purpose to oppose the heresies, arising 
in the time of the apostles, namely, those of Cerinthus, the 
Nicolaites, the Ebionites, the Doketists and others less known ; 
the erroneous doctrines of all these sects consisted principally in 
false expositions of the higher nature in Christ and its union with 
the human nature. The Ebionites, under the influences of nar- 
row-minded Jewish ideas, could not reconcile it with the unity 
of God, to acknowledge in Christ a real higher, divine nature ; 
hence they understood of Christ the name " Son of God "only 
in a moral sense, in the same way as every just man can be 
called by this name ; Jesus of Nazareth, was to them, in His 
dignity, not much more than another prophet, and accord- 
ing to His nature the mere^son of Joseph and Mary. The other 
sects of the time, imbued by the'principles of the fantastic New- 



*) St. Iren. adv. Haer. Ill, ii. 
f) S. Epiph. Haeres. 69, 23. 
t) St. Hieronym de Vir. ill. c. 9. 



GENERAL COMPARISON OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 49 

Platonism, made no difficulty in acknowledging a higher nature 
in Christ, jet not divine, the distance between the divine sub- 
stance and the material world being too great, but only one of 
the emanations from the divine being, which they called Eons, 
or also the Logos, according to the Platonic terminology. This 
Eon or Logos then was in Christ, according to them, not physi- 
cally and much less hypostatically united with the human na- 
ture, but only morally, whence they said, that the higher Christ 
did not descend into Jesus of Nazareth before His baptism, and 
withdrew again in His passion, so that only a mere man died on 
thecross. The Doketists, pushing one principle of this philosophy 
to its extreme, namely the principle that matter is the cause of 
all evil, or the evil itself, denied the reality of the human nature, 
especially the body, in Christ, and declared it to have been a 
mere phantasm or appearance, in which the Logos showed him- 
self to man in this world. The passion and death of Christ was, 
therefore, to them nothing but an illusion. The work of our 
redemption, accomplished by Christ, according to these sects, 
consisted only in the manifestation of the truth, in the con- 
quering of the cosmic material powers by the spiritual or ce- 
lestial, or as Cerinthus said, in the revelation of the "hid- 
den God;" certainly they were antichrists, or as St. John 
writes in his first epistle, ch. -i, v. 9, dividing or dissolving 
Christ into nothing and undermining the mystery of man's 
salvation through Him and in Him. Against these abominable 
errors, St. John rose up, as St. Jerom says, in his gospel with 
the full power of an apostle, proclaiming, that the higher na- 
ture in Christ, the Logos, was in the beginning, hence existed 
before the beginning of the world, was with God and was God, 
by Whom all things came into existence, and was the life and 
light of men through all ages. This eternal personal Logos or 
Word was made flesh, or is come in the flesh, that is, has assumed 
a real human nature, consisting of soul and body, dwelt among 
men, manifested His glory, and suffered and died for us in 
all reality, whence in Him, as the Word made flesh, we 



50 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

have life everlasting. To prove this incontestably of "That, 
which was from the beginning, which the apostle has heard 
himself, which he has seen with his own eyes, which he 
has looked upon, and his own hands have handled of the 
Word of life, (epist. I, ch. 1, v. 1.) this is the primary, the grand 
•object of this gospel, to declare to you, as he says, that which 
we have seen and heard, that ye also may have communion with 
us, and our communion is with the Father, and with His Son 
Jesus Christ." For this design, he selected the proper material 
and adapted it. Having this end in view, he dwelled princi- 
pally on that part of the public life of Christ, which He passed 
in Jerusalem and Judea ; for whatsoever may be the reason, 
it is an established fact, that, whilst Christ in His discourses 
in Galilee expounded the moral principles of the Kingdom of 
God and though He wrought there many miracles, He fre- 
quently forbade to spread them, even when Peter confessed Him 
to be the Son of the living God, He charged them not to make 
it known, He proceeded quite in a different manner, when 
being and speaking in Jerusalem. There He spoke on every 
occasion, privately and publicly, with the greatest emphasis and 
distinctiveness of His divine nature, and pointed, to confirm 
His words, directly to His works. In these discourses, there- 
fore, St. John found the most proper material for his design ; 
and this is the reason why he dwells principally on this part 
of the public life of Christ, but it was, we may say, only a se- 
condary design in him, or no design at all, but merely an occas- 
ional consequence, when, by pursuing his primary object, he at 
the same time supplied a part of the public life of Christ, omitted 
by the other Evangelists. We are perfectly confident, that 
the reader the more carefully he studies this gospel, the more 
he will be convinced of the correctness of these remarks, and 
also, having them before his eyes, the more understand and 
admire the sublimity of this gospel. 

5. But now, having shown the relation between St. John and 
the other Evangelists, we must meet the question, how the 



GENERAL COMPARISON OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 51 

latter stand one to another. Their writings are commonly 
called the synoptical gospels, having the same object in view, 
and this is not without good reason ; for the intimate affinity 
that exists between these three gospels, admits no doubts, but 
is rather of such an extraordinary and marked character, 
that it is difficult to explain its origin. They relate mostly, not- 
only the same events, the same miracles, parables and discourses 
of Christ, but what is most surprising, frequently in the very 
same words. How is this to be accounted for ? St. Augustin 
suggested, that St. Mark, in writing his gospel, used the gos- 
pel of St. Mathew ; and St. Luke used both of the preceding. 
The correctness of this answer, however, has been much 
doubted and, therefore, modified by modern writers, but after 
all, according to our judgment, without approaching any near- 
er to certainty in this question. We confine ourselves to the 
giving of one of these modifications. Patritius consents to St. 
Augustin in this, that he defends the same succession of the 
three gospels, and also, that the Succeeding followed one or 
both of the preceding; but he modifies the conjecture of the 
father by the assumption, that St. Mark used not the Greek, 
but the Hebrew text of St. Matthew ; hence it would follow, 
that the Greek phraseology of St. Mark is not derived from 
the gospel of St. Matthew, but on the contrary the translator 
of the Hebrew gospel would have used either the text of St. 
Mark alone, or perhaps beside St. Mark's also that of St. Luke, 
namely in the case, that the translation of the first gospel would 
have been made, after St. Luke had already written his gospel. 
The reason that prevailed on Patritius, to make this modifica- 
tion, is of some importance ; he says : "If you ask why St. Mark 
considered it better rather to give to the Romans a gospel, 
written by himself, than the gospel of St. Matthew, (which 
contains nearly all that St. Mark relates, and besides this a 
great deal that in the second gospel is omitted,) I could not 
find any other probable reason but this, that Mark had only 
known the Syro-Chaldaic, not the Greek gospel of St. Matthew, 



52 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

when he wrote his gospel at Rome."*) Still also this combina- 
tion labors under great difficulties, and is scarcely more proba- 
ble than the original of St. Augustin, or those suggested by other 
modern writers. Hence we prefer to give up all these conject- 
ures and to say with the learned Dr. Haneberg, that none of 
the three Evangelists knew or used the writing of the other. 
The reasons for this opinion are as follows : 1) The tradition 
knows nothing of this supposed connection between these gos- 
pels ; in all passages extant of the second and third century, 
on the origin of them, nothing is mentioned of it. What St. 
Augustin and others say on it, is no doubt their own conjecture, 
but no tradition on the question. 2) If the statement, given 
by St. Irenaeus on the time of the origin of the gospels is 
correct, then the tradition would be even decidedly against 
such a dependency between them ; for according to him Matth- 
ew wrote a very short time before Mark and Luke, and this 
in a far distant country, so that, considering all the circumstan- 
ces, the latter could not have known the gospel of St. Matthew 
at the time when they set to work, to write their own. 3) The 
reason adduced by Patritius, for his combination, speaks 
yet stronger for our view. 4) The gospels themselves, if you 
let out of sight the great conformity of the wording, give no 
indications of such a relation of one to another. On the con- 
trary, in many instances you might rather think that if one 
had known the writing of the other, he would have expressed 
himself differently in order to avoid apparent contradictions. 
We know well, St. Luke speaks of such who have written before 
him, yet even Patritius and the other authors of the opposite 
view admit, that by those referred to in this passage, St. Luke 
does not comprehend either St. Matthew or St. Mark,f) but 



*) Patrit. p. I, p. 61, 62. 

f) St. Luke, according to the statement of St. Irenaeus, could not have 
known the second gospel, but even if so, the words of the prologue would 
rather indicate, that St. Luke did not rely on written documents in his com- 
position, but on the oral traditions of eye-witnesses. 



GENERAL COMPARISON OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 53 

means some other writers of whom history gives no further 
account. 5) We deem it quite unnecessary to resort to such a 
supposition ; it is commonly agreed on that the three gospels 
are entirely independent, in regard to the source from which 
they derive their material. The first gospel gives a synopsis of 
the oral preaching of St. Matthew, the second of St. Peter 
and the third of St. Paul ; and yet there exists the most sur- 
prising conformity in regard to the events, miracles, parables, 
discourses, related according to this threefold source of these 
gospels ; now if such a conformity of the material can and even 
must be admitted, without having recourse to a dependency of 
one on the other in regard to it, why should a similar conformity 
of the language be impossible without such a supposition ? 
The apostles remained for a good while together in Jerusalem 
or at least in Palestine. St. John seems not to have gone from 
thence before 57, A. Ch.; St. Matthew, if we follow St. Iren- 
aeus, was there even in the year 63, A. Ch. Considering more- 
over that the apostles stated the facts, relating to the life of 
Christ in the most simple manner, and gave the parables and 
discourses of the Lord, Who used the Aramaic language, as exact 
as it can be expected in the Greek language, which no doubt 
they also used in their oral preaching besides their own, should 
all this not suffice to explain the great conformity of the lan- 
guage in the three gospels, which pretend to be a summary of 
the oral preaching of the apostles ? 

6. In our foregoing remarks, the question, what was the 
principal design of each of these three Evangelists in writing 
their gospels, is already answered ; for it is no other but what 
we repeatedly stated according to the traditions, that is, to 
give a written record of the common, oral preaching of the 
apostles. Still besides this primary object, we must admit a 
secondary in the first and third gospel. St. Matthew, preach- 
ing in Palestine, and writing for the inhabitants of that coun- 
try, endeavored to make manifest from the events of the life 
of Christ and His miracles and discourses, that He was really 



54 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

the Messiah foretold by the prophets; hence he gives more 
quotations of the Old Testament, than the other Evangelists. 
St. Luke, besides giving the apostolical preaching, intended, as 
he expressly tells us in his prologue, to trace diligently all 
things from the beginning, and to write them in order ; he goes 
therefore, as we said above, further back in his narrative, and 
observes nearly always the chronological order. St. Mark 
has been called the epitomist of St. Matthew, but a careful 
comparison of the two gospels shows evidently that such an 
assertion is entirely incorrect: though the shortest of the three 
gospels, in some instances it gives a larger detail of the circum- 
stances than the other, and contains, at least, some facts not 
contained at all in the gospel of St. Matthew.*) We think, 
therefore, St. Mark's one sole object was, to give the synopsis 
of the preaching of St. Peter, f) 

7. It is generally known, that on account of the number 
four, the vision of Ezechiel, chap. 1, v. 10, has been applied 



*) In the whole there are six statements, entirely peculiar to St. Mark, 
namely, Chap. 1, 26—29 ;*Chap. 7, 32—37 ; Chap. 8, 22—26 : Chap. 11, 1,— 
14; Chap. 13. 33—37: Chap. 16, 9—11. 

f) D. Aberle of Tuebingen proposes a new hypothesis concerning the de- 
sign of each of the four Evangelists ; he supposes they wrote for an apolo- 
getical purpose. Not long after Stephen had been stoned, the Sanhedrim 
published a document of proscription against all Christians, as St. Justin M. 
testifies. The design of St. Matthew was, according to this hypothesis, to re- 
fute the charges contained in this document, by showing in clear statements 
to the Jews, how Jesus of Nazareth proved Himself to be the Messiah. The 
trial of St. Paul involved the cause of the Christian name before the Roman 
emperor. St. Luke, says Aberle. defended the Christian name in his gospel, 
and St. Paul, especially in the acts, but in a very cautious way. so as not to 
offend or excite. The Muratorian fragment calls, therefore, St. Luke the 
juris studiosus secundus, the attorney of St. Paul. The gospel of St. Mark 
is written for the Jewish proselytes, among the pagans, who accepted more 
readily the preaching of the apostles. St. Mark represents to them Christ, 
especially in the light of His miracles, without entering, like St. Matthew, 
in the arguments, drawn from the Old Testament. St. John finally opposed 
the Rabbinism, into which, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Judaism 
tranformed itself. The foundation of this hypothesis, however, seems to us 
to be rather weak. (Quartalsch 1863, n. 1.) 



CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 55 

to the four gospels in very ancient times, though not always 
in the same order. St. Irenaeus attributes to Matthew the 
Cherubim with the human countenance, to Mark the Eagle, to 
Luke the Ox, and to John the Lion. St. Augustin says : Of 
those that interpreted the four animals in the Apocalypse of 
the four Evangelists, they seem to me preferable who attribute 
the Lion to Matthew, Man to Mark, the Calf to Luke, and the 
Eagle to John. St. Jerom finally followed the application 
which is now generally adopted ; in his prologue to St. Mat- 
thew, he ascribes Man to Matthew, the Lion to Mark, the Ox to 
Luke, and the Eagle to John. From the application of this 
vision of the gospels, whatever one may think of its appropri- 
ateness, we learn at least this much, that from the days of St. 
Irenaeus there were neither more nor fewer gospels within the 
church, than four. Origen*) testifies to the same fact, saying : 
"The church has four gospels, the heretics have a great num- 
ber of them." 



VI. — The Chronology of the Gospels. 

1. Chronology is the eye of history ; without it all becomes 
obscure and confused, and the greatest events are in danger of 
losing their reality, to sink down from the open daylight into 
the shadowy regions of tales and myths ; and yet, chronology 
offers frequently great difficulties ; for the ancient authors were 
not as careful, as we might wish, in stating in clear numbers 
or terms the dates of the facts which they relate ; they mostly 
give only a few hints, to indicate the time or year of which 
they treat, plain enough for their cotemporaries to be under- 
stood, but full of obscurities frequently to posterity. Thus we 
find it also in the gospels, and this the more so, as they are, 



*) Origen. Horn, in Luc. opp. Tom. III. p. 933. 



56 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

if you perhaps except St. Luke's gospel, not intended to be 
strictly historical books. Hence we must be prepared to meet 
a good many difficulties in establishing a satisfactory chronology 
of the gospels. 

2. The chronological dates which we find in the gospels, we 
divide into two classes, viz ; 1) of those, from which the year 
of the birth and death of Christ must be derived; and 2) of 
the others, by which we are enabled to connect in a continuous 
series the events of the public life of Christ. 

Those of the first class are contained principally in four 
passages, namely a) St. Luke, ch. 2, v. 1, 2. b) St. Luke ch. 3, v. 1, 
2, c) St. Luke, ch. 2, v. 42 compared with St. Matthew, ch. 2, v. 22, 
d) St. John, ch. 2, v. 20. The first passage (St. Luke ch. 2, v. 1, 
2,) refers to the year of the birth of our Divine Redeemer. "And 
it came that in those days a decree went forth from Augustus Ce- 
sar that the whole world should be enrolled. This first enrollment 
was made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria." D. D. Kenrick 
remarks, of this decree no profane history has made mention, 
following herein Olshausen. This is only correct in regard 
to Josephus Flavins who makes no mention of this enrollment. 
But Suetonius states in the life of Augustus, ch. 27 " Censum 
populi ter egit ;*) and from a remarkable historical monument, 
the exact years of these three enrollments are perfectly known. 
Augustus, when at the point of death, ordered, that a summary 
(index) of his principal deeds should be engraved in brazen 
tables, and put up before his mausoleum. f) A copy of this sum- 
mary, engraved in stone, has been preserved at the entrance of 
& temjAe in An-cy?*a in Galatia, dedicated to Augustus. Accord- 
to this monument, Augustus undertook a census or enrollment 
at three different times, namely 1) in the sixth year of his con- 
sulship, U. C. T26; then 2) "in the year T46 U. C, and 3) 
the last near his death, 766 U. C. Of these three enrollments, 



*) Suet. Aug. 101. 
f) Patrit. P. Ill, 1, c. 



CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 57 

we will endeavor to make it plain to the reader, that the se- 
cond coincides with the one, to which St. Luke refers. But be- 
fore we enter on this question, we must meet, first, another ob - 
jection, which has been'made denying the possibility of any 
enrollment, ordered by a Roman emperor at that time in Pales- 
tine ; for then, they say, Palestine was not yet a Roman prov- 
ince, it had its own King, Herod, the Idumean; therefore the 
enrollment could not be extended to this country. To this we 
answer, the statement of St. Luke, according to whom, though 
Herod was yet living, such an enrollment was really taken up in 
Palestine by the order of Augustus Cesar, is well supported by 
profane history, from which we know, that Herod was a socius 
Romanus ex non aequo foedere, that is, not by a free treaty, 
but by having been made king of a country, that was already 
entirely in the power of the Romans. Such socii were in the 
uttermost dependency upon the Roman empire, so that the 
Jews, when taking the oath of fidelity to Herod, their king, 
had at the same time to swear also an oath of allegiance to the 
Roman emperor. Such countries had their own administration 
and also their own laws, but they were deprived of the sove- 
reignty, which belonged to the emperor. Hence we could, even 
without the express statement of St. Luke, considering only 
the relation, in which at that time Palestine stood to the 
Roman empire, conclude with all certainty, that, if an en- 
rollment was ordered in the year 746 U. C, the same was also 
extended to Palestine. 

3. But how is it to be made conclusive, that the enrollment, 
ordered in the year 746 U. C, is really the very same of which 
St. Luke speaks in the passage quoted. To show this, the 
second chronological statement must be expounded and compared 
with the first; in this second passage we read: "now in the 
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cesar, Pontius Pilate 
being procurator of Judea, and Herod being tetratch of Gali- 
lee the word of the Lord was on John, the son of Zachary, 

in the Desert ;" again in v. 22, 23, of the same chapter, we read, 



58 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

that Christ at the time of His baptism " tvas beginning about 
the age of thirty years." Augustus died on the 19th of August, 
in the year 767, U. C, and hence, the beginning of the fifteenth 
year of his successor falls in the month of August of 781, U. C. 
Now if we subtract about 30 years, the birth of Christ would 
fall in the year of 751, U. C, since He was according to the 
foregoing statements about 30 years old in the year of His 
baptism. But that this calculation cannot be correct, is evident 
from the well established fact, that Herod, who was king of Judea 
at the time of the birth of Christ and who persecuted the infant 
Saviour, died not long before easter of the year 750, U. C, ac- 
cording to Josephus Flavins. To remove this most perplexing 
difficulty, Pagius has observed, that the fifteenth year of the 
reign of Tiberius is not dated from the death of Augustus, that 
is, from the year 767, U. C, but from the year, when Tiberius 
had been adopted by Augustus in his life-time as co-emperor ; 
this event took place in the year 764 or 765, U. C; Patritius,*) 
in his most elaborate dessertation on this question, modifies 
the conjecture of Pagius by saying, that the years of Tiberius 
are not counted from the time of this adoption, but of his 
being sent into the Oriental provinces, invested with the ple- 
nary power over them, which event, however, he places in the 
same year, as Pagius the adoption to the imperial throne, name- 
ly 764, U. C, whence he derives, that the beginning of the 
fifteenth year of Tiberius falls in the year 778, U. C.f). Christ, 
being 30 years old in the year 778, U. C, was consequently 
born at the end of the year 747, U. C, and as He died on the 
cross in the year 782, it follows that, being baptised 778, His 



*) Patritius III. p. 414. p. n, 7. 

f) Patrit. 1. c. 413. n. 5 Hoc posito manifestum est quintum decimum annum 
ex quo Tiberio imperium illud delatum fuerat, Judaeis et Antiochenis incepisse 
anno U. C. 778, qua ratione patet Joannem munus suum suscipere potuisse 
eo tempore quo necesse fuit. ut Christus ortus an. U. C. 747 dici possit ad 
Joannem adiisse annos natus, ut ait Lucas, quasi triginta, in crucem vero 
actus U. C. 782. 



CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 59 

public life comprises a period of three years and some months. 
But to this computation which indeed would solve the difficulty, 
two grave objections are opposed; first, that the administration 
of the provinces of the Orient were not conferred on Tiberius 
in the year 764 U. C, but most probably (exeunte anno 765,) 
towards the end of the year 765, some say*) even, in the year 
766, U. C ; secondly, that Pilate, who was governor of Judea 
in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, did not occupy this position 
before the year 779, U. C ; for the statements, by which San- 
clemente proves this year to be the first of Pilate's governor- 
ship in Judea, are so definite, that all the learning and sagacity 
of Patritius cannot prevail against them.f ) Hence a moderate 
modification of this combination seems to be necessary, for 
which the required foundation will not be too far fetched, ac- 
cording to our judgment. We can see no other reason, why 
Patritius by all means endeavors to make out the year 778 
to be the fifteenth of Tiberius, but because he takes it for 
granted, that the public life of Christ comprised three years 
and three months, wherefore, if John had not begun to preach and 
baptize before the year 779, U. C, the death of Christ could 
not have taken place in the first months of the year 782, U. C, 
a date, which is too strongly testified to, to be changed. But 
it will appear further on below, that it is almost certain that 
the period of the life of Christ from His baptism to His death, 
comprises not more than two years and three months ; and 
hence it causes no difficulty whatsoever against the year of the 
death of Christ to admit the year 779, U. C.,to be the 15th 
year of Tiberius; but this would of course demand a change of the 
year of the birth of Christ ; for if Christ was aged thirty years 
towards the end of 779, or the beginning of 780, at which time 
He was baptized, He was not born before the end of 748, U. C. , 
contrary to Patritius, who puts the birth of the Lord at the 



*) Schegg. 1. c. 

f) Patrit. III. p. 463, n. 12, 13, 14. 



bU IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

end of 747, U. C. This change, however, cannot cause any 
grievous difficulty. The census, which was ordered in the year 
746, U. C, and probably was not commenced before 747, 
required a good while, until it was completed, especially in 
distant provinces, and perhaps under local difficulties, as we 
may well presume to have existed in Judea, not being yet per- 
fectly a province of the Roman empire. To resume in a few 
words the result of our investigation, we say, Christ was born 
at the end ( 25th Decemb. ) of the year 748, U. C. John com- 
menced to preach and baptize 779, U. C. ; Christ was baptized 
at the end of 779 or at the beginning of 780, U. C, and died 
at master of 782, U. C.*) 

5. Some authors, f) however, prefer another solution of the 
difficulty ; they consider it unsafe to count the years of Ti- 
berius from any date before the death of Augustus, and begin, 
therefore, the fifteenth year of this emperor with the 19th day of 
of August, 781, U. C. To reconcile this date with the age of 
Christ and His death in 782. U. C, they say, St. Luke in the 
beginning of his third chapter, did not intend to give the date 
of the baptism of Christ, but rather the beginning of His pub- 
lic preaching : but this commenced, according to the synoptical 
gospels, not immediately with His baptism, but about one year 
after, when He returned from Judea to Galilee, in the beginn- 
ing of the year 781, U. C. From this it would follow, that the 
last year of the life of Christ, partly coincided with the fif- 
teenth of Tiberius, beginning at the 19th day of August, 781, 
and ending August 782, during which time Christ died. With 
this, they say, agrees then perfectly, what Tertullian states con- 
cerning the year of the death of Christ, saying: "In the fif- 



*) Doellinger puts the death of Christ in the year 783 U. C, on the 7th of 
April ; therefore also the baptism of Christ one year later, that is, at the be- 
ginning of 781 ; but he does not give the facts, on which this calculation is 
based. ( Christenthum u. Kirche p. 41.) 

f) Wiseler, 'Reithuieier, Schegg. 



CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 61 

teenth year of Tiberius, Christ suffered; *) and again: "This 
passion (of our Lord) was accomplished under Tiberius Cesar, un- 
der the Consuls Rubellius Geminus, and Rufius Geminus in the 
month of March, in the paschal time, on the VIII day before 
the calendae of April, on the first of the unleavened bread, f) 
The result of this solution is the same, as of the forgoing; it 
enjoys the advantage of reconciling the statement of Tertul- 
lian, Clement of A., and other fathers with St. Luke, but its 
foundation, namely, the interpretation of St. Luke, chap. 3, v. 
1, as stated above, appears to us not sufficiently established. 

6. St. Luke continues, chap. 2, v. 2: "This first enrollment 
(of Palestine) was made by Cyrinus, the Governor of Syria. "J) 
This remark of the Evangelist causes no small difficulty. D. 
D. Kenrick, says in the note to this passage: "From Josephus 
it appears, that Publius Sulpicius Quirinus§) was not raised 
to the dignity of proconsul of Syria for nearly ten years after- 
wards. (Antiq. XVI. 13,Tacit. Ann. 111,68.) Sentius Saturninus 
was made proconsul towards the end of the life of Herod. To 
him the enrollment is ascribed by Tertullian. Calmet suggests 
that the (Greek) text might be rendered: " This enrollment was 
made prior to that made by Cyrinus, (or rather prior then Cy- 
rinus was proconsul,") which enrollment, made by Cyrinus, was 
well (better) known to all. Olshausen thinks that the change 
of an accent j) ( a #ny into avrf) might remove the whole difficulty. 
It would be better to read av-rj pro av-?j, so that this idea would 
be expressed in the words : The taxation itself (which at that 



*) Tertull. c. Iud. c. 8 Hujus (Tiberii) XV anno imperii passus est Chris- 
tus. Thus, also, Lactant. Inst. IV. 10. Orosius H. VII. 10. August, de 
Trin., IV, 10. 

f) Quae passio perfecta est sub Tiberio Caesare, Coss. Rubellio Gemino et 
Rufio Gemino, mense Martio, temporibus Paschae. die VIII Cal. April, die 
prima azymorum. Tert. 1. c. Others put the death of the Lord in the 16th 
year of Tiberius, following Clement of Alexandria. 

X) Haec descriptio prima facta est a praeside Syriae Cyrino. Airy ?; arroy- 
pcKprj Trpurrj eyiveTO riyEiiovEvovroQ rfjgl.vpiag Kvplvov.™ 

$) Quirinus is in Greek, Kvpivoc. 



62 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

time would merely have been undertaken,) took place first un- 
der the proconsulate of Quirinus." Schegg, however, rejects 
these interpretations of the text, as being contrary to the ge- 
nius of the Greek language, and refers to Patritius, who gives a 
more satisfactory solution of the difficulty ; he says, that San- 
clemente in his celebrated work, "De anno Chr. Dom. natal." 
IV. c. 3, 4, p. 413 offers an ancient inscription, found in the 
year 1764, between the villa Hadriani, and the via Tiburtina, 
from which it appears, that a Roman of consular rank twice 
administrated Syria under the reign of Augustus.*) Though 
the proper name of this Roman, who twice governed Syria is 
broken off from the mutilated inscription, yet, all circumstances 
of the history of the time being considered, no other Roman 
of consular rank, could be the person referred to, except Quir- 
inus. The inscription contains nothing, that would not agree 
with him, and something that agrees with him only. Hence it 
appears, that Quirinus twice was in Syria; the first time in 
company with Saturninus Sent., probably with an extraordinary 
power for the census, as it was very usual among the Romans 
to send an extraordinary censitor into the provinces, for arrang- 
ing the finances,f) and then, again, in the year 759 U. C, as 
the ordinary Governor of Syria. Patritius refers to another 
inscription for the confirmation of the foregoing ; but we think 
what we have stated, will be sufficient to remove all reasonable 
doubt, and solve the difficulty. 

6. Another date may be made out of St. Luke, chap. 2, v. 
2 ; compared with Matthew, chapter 2, v. 22 ; in the se- 
cond passage we read : " And hearing that Archelaus 
reigned in Judea, in the room of Herod, his father, he 
(Joseph) was afraid to go thither ; ' ' and in the first quotation : 



*) Patritius gives a facsimile of this inscription, adding : Quamquam inde 
avulsum fuerit nomen ejus, cui titulus positus erat, nihil tamen hie reperias 
quod Quirino non congruat, aliquid vero, quod huic uni : ut illud,, Divi Au. 
gusti iterum Syriam. 77 

f ) Schegg. p. 43. 



CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 63 

"And when He (Jesus) was twelve years old, they, going up to 

Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast the Child 

Jesus remained in Jerusalem." Now from the passage of St. 
Matthew we see, that Joseph, returning from Egypt, avoided 
Judea, being afraid of Archelaus, indeed not for himself, but 
for the Child. His parents went every year to Jerusalem, at 
the solemn day of easter, the Child Jesus, as it is most likely, 
the first time, when He was twelve year old — why just in the 
twelfth year? Certainly there was no obligation of the law 
for this age, and physically, there was no impediment before 
the twelfth year. Must we not think there was some other 
reason, that the Child went up just at the twelfth year ? Now 
Josephus Flavius relates, that Archelaus, whom the Child had 
to fear, was deposed and sent into exile on account of his cru- 
elty, in the tenth year of his reign, perhaps not long before 
the easter of 760, U. C. The Child Jesus, being in the twelfth 
year in 760, or beyond twelve years in 761, U . C, had nothing 
more to fear at this time from this tyrant, and, therefore, went 
up with His parents to Jerusalem. Certainly this coincidence 
is a confirmation of the foregoing computation. 

7. Finally, also, from St. John, chap. 2, v. 20, we may de- 
rive a confirmation for our chronology of the birth and life of 
Christ. . When Jesus had driven all the money-changers out of 
the temple, he said to the Jews, demanding a sign of Him, to 
justify what He had done : "Destroy this temple, and in three 
days I will raise it up." The Jews then said: " Six and forty 
years was this temple in building, and wilt Thou raise it up in 
three days?" This is supposed, remarks D. D. Kenrick, most 
properly, to have been the time occupied in the repairing or 
rebuilding of the temple, under Herod the Great, which com- 
menced in the eighteenth year of his reign, and was continued 
after his death, nearly up to the time of the destruction of 
Jerusalem." The eighteenth year of Herod's reign falls in the 
year 733 to 734, U. C, consequently the complete 46th year 
of the rebuilding into the year 780, U. C; which exactly agrees 



64 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

with the foregoing calculation ; for Christ was baptized, as we 
said, about the beginning of the year 780, U. C, being born 
at the end of 748, He was about thirty years old in 780 U. C, 
and it was at the first easter after His baptism, that is to say, 
in the year 780, when the Jews said, that the temple was six 
and forty years in building. 

8. Having established the dates of the birth and death of 
Christ, we have now to investigate into the second class of chro- 
nological statements of the gospels, namely, of those that refer 
to the extension and connection of His public life. The synop- 
tical gospels, though relating extensively the baptism of Christ 
in the Jordan, give no indication whatsoever, at what time of the 
year this event took place; yet they add, that immediately 
after the baptism, He retired into the desert for forty days. 
Comparing this with what we read in the first and second chap- 
ter of St. John, we find out the time of the baptism very near- 
ly. According to St. John, Christ appeared after baptism, 
and of course after the forty days spent in the desert, again on 
the Jordan, where the Baptist pointed to Him, saying : " Be- 
hold the Lamb of God!" Not many days after, Christ re- 
turned with His first disciples to Galilee, where He wrought 
His first miracle in Cana. After this He went down to 
Capernaum, He and His mother and His brethren, and 
His disciples, and they remained there not many days. (St. 
John, chap. 2, v. 12.) And the passover of the Jews was 
at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now easter falling 
towards the end of March, the time, of which St. John says 
that the passover was at hand, was about the middle of March; 
if we allow for His stay at Cana and Capernaum, His jour- 
ney from Judea to Galilee, and His sojourn in Judea near the 
Jordan, after the temptation, in the whole about three or four 
weeks, we come back to the middle of February ; if we then 
count back the forty days spent in the desert, we come down 
to the beginning of January, for the time of His baptism. 
This agrees perfectly with the ancient tradition, both of His 



CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 65 

birth and His baptism ; for if Christ was at His baptism about 
thirty years, we may safely conclude that the day of His birth 
was not far from the day of the year, on which He was bap- 
tized ; now according to the most probable traditions, the day 
of His birth is the 25th of December, hence near to the begin- 
ning of January, when He was baptised. On the day of the 
baptism itself, tradition points to the 6th of January, which, 
we may say, is exactly the day derived from the calculation 
above. 

9. After the passover, Christ did not return from Jerusalem 
to Galilee, but, as St. John states in ch. 3, 2, 22, Jesus and 
His disciples came into the country of Judea, and there He 
abode with them, and baptized, whilst John was also baptizing 
in Ennon, near Salim. But when Jesus heard that John was 
delivered up (into prison), He retired into Galilee. ( St. Matth. 
4, 12.) St. John tells us, that He took His way through Sama- 
ria, and points out the time of this return in the words of the 
Saviour, saying to His disciples : " Do ye not say ; there are yet 
four months, and then the harvest cometh ?" The harvest com- 
menced usually in Palestine in the middle of the month Nisan : 
four months back from this, we have the middle of the 
month Kislev, of our December, for the time, when Christ, 
being on His way to Galilee, spoke these words. Hence we are 
enabled to follow the Lord in all His movements during the first 
year of His public life. He was baptized at the beginning of 
January, retired into the desert, appeared again about the mid- 
dle of February on the Jordan, went back with His first disci- 
ples to Galilee, wrought His first miracle in Cana, came "down 
to Capernaum, went up to Jerusalem about the middle of March 
for the passover, abode afterwards with His disciples in the 
country of Judea, and returned at the end of the year through 
Samaria to Galilee. 

10. Thus far there was no danger of going astray; but now 
we arrive at a "bivium" that is, a spot having two ways ; some 
of the authors go to the right, the others to the left ; whom 



£6 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

'shall We follow ? St. John, having related the journey of Christ 
from Judea through Samaria, tells us, that He came again into 
Cana of Galilee, where He performed the second miracle, heal- 
ing the son of a certain ruler, (ch. 4, v. 46 — 54). Then he adds 
immediately (ch. 5, v. 1,): "After these things was a festival 
day of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." Maldonat, 
always cheerful and spirited, remarks on this passage : "St. 
■ J^hn would have saved us much molestation and contention had 
\e added but one word to declare, which festival of the Jews 
this was." Then he adds, that nearly all agree in regard to 
this question thus far, that this festival was one of the three, 
for which the law commanded every one to come to the temple, 
that is, either easter, or pentecost or the feast of the taber- 
nacles, and gives finally his sentence in favor of pentecost. 
His reason against easter is derived from the manner, how St. 
John expresses himself; for when St. John remarks : " There 
was a festival day," it is as if he would say: "There was 
some festival day, but not the festival par excellence.*) Pa- 
tritius declares himself in favor of the feast of the tabernacles. 
His argumentation is as follows : "At the time of this festival 
John the Baptist had already been put to death; for Christ, 
speaking at the festival of the Baptist to the Jews in Jerusa- 
lem, says of him : "He was a burning and a shining light," 
(ch. 5, v. 35,); but the Baptist sent his disciples to Christ a 
good while after easter, as appears from the 6th chapter of St. 
Luke, where w x e read, that the disciples of Christ, going through 
the cornfields, plucked the ears and ate, rubbing them through 
their hands, on the second first sabbath ; this occurred, as Pa- 
tritius says, no doubt in the time of harvest, between easter and 
pentecost. After other events, related in the same 6th chap- 
ter, we read in the 7th chapter, that the Baptist sent his disci- 
ples to Christ ; hence the Baptist was yet living about pente- 

"*) Maldonat: " Itaque cum dicit,, erat dies festus Judaeorum^ 1 perinde 
est ac si dicat: agebatur dies quidam festus Judaeorum. non agebatur dies ille 
festus per excellentiam. 



CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 67 

cost, and consequently, the festival day, when Christ said of 
him, that he was a burning light, could neither be easter nor 
pentecost, but must be the next following great festival, that is, 
the feast of the tabernacles.*) According to this, St. John 
omitted to mention the second easter of the public life of Christ, 
and between the end of the 4th chapter of St. John and the 
beginning of the 5th, would be an interval of about nine months, 
that St. John passed over in silence. And again, as St. John 
in ch. 6, v. 4, says "Now the passover, the festival day of the 
Jews, was at hand," another interlapse of about six months 
must be admitted. But all this could be granted according to 
that, which we said on the design of St. John, in writing his 
gospel, provided that the foundation of the whole structure of 
the argumentation would be more solid and safe ; for the whole 
rests on the supposition, that in the words of Christ u John was 
a burning light" the death of the Baptist is expressed. We 
consulted Maldonat, Cornelius a Lapide, Calmet, A. Maier, and 
Kenrick on this passage ; none of these authors finds the sup- 
posed sense in it; Calmet interprets")") "John the Baptist was 
four months then already imprisoned ; this light therefore was 
somewhat obscured, and put under the bushel, soon to be ex- 
tinguished entirely." And we think nobody can deny that the 
words of Christ do not contain more than that John B. was 
not more preaching publicly ; that he was already dead, might 
be, but it does not follow from these words ; but this being un- 
certain, the whole argumentation fails ; and this the more so, as 
the time when the Baptist sent his disciples to Christ, cannot 
be derived with perfect certainty from the beginning of the 
6th chapter of St. Luke, compared with the Tth ; for it 
is for more than one reason, most probable, that St. Luke 
just in this chapter does not observe the exact chronological 



*) Patrit. II, p. 402. 

f ) "Joannes Baptista tunc quatuor menses in carcerem clatus fuerat ; lu 
cerna haec quodammodo obscurata erat et sub modio posita, brevi penitus ex- 
tinguenda supplicio." Calmet. 



68 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

order;*) whence no certainty can be obtained for this question 
from the passages referred to. D. D. Kenrick, therefore, 
properly remarks: "Many think, that it was the feast of the 
Purim, or Lots, instituted in the time of Esther to commemorate 
the providential deliverance of the Jews from the massacre de- 
creed against them." This festival was celebrated the 14th 
and 15th of the month of Adar, towards the end of February, 
four weeks before easter. At present, we may call this the most 
common opinion among the authors ; it was first proposed by 
Keppler, j") who was not only a great astronomer, but also a chro- 
nologist, and by Petavius, (aquila Jesuitarum) J) though both of 
them were also inclined to think of the encenia of the Temple, 
towards the end of December ; L. Hug, Tholuck, Olshausen, 
Maier, and especially Wieseler,§) gave their votes for the festi- 
val of the Purim ; A. Maier in his commentary on the gospel 
of St. John says, that, as soon after in ch. 6, v. 4, the pass- 
over is mentioned to be at hand, you are compelled to 1 think, that 
the festival day, mentioned ch. 5, v. 1, was the preceding feast of 
the Purim. ||) Reithmeierlf) declares, among the different opinions 
the least founded is for the festival of easter ; whereas the most 
weighty reasons stand for that festival, which was celebrated 
in the middle of the month Adar, that is, the festival of the 
Purim. The succession of time, says Haneberg,**) scarcely ad- 
mits us to understand another festival. Their principal reasons 



*) Reithmeier says : " The second first Sabbath (St. Luke 6, 1,) is to be 
understood of the Sabbath in the Octave of easter : but of which easter ? 
Most probably of the second (John 6. 4,) and the relation of the event trans- 
posed out of the chronological order ; its place would be after Luke ch. 9, v. 
17."— p. 456. 

f ) Keppler. Eclog. chronic. Frankf. 1613. 

%) Petav. Animadv. ad Epiph. Haeres, lib. 12 de doctrina temp. 17,. 
XXVIII. p. 201, Colon. 

I) Wieseler, Chronolog. Synopt 1843. 

||) A. Maier. II, p. 3. 

ft) Reithm. Binleitung, p. 357. 

**) Haneberg, 1. c. p 536. 



CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 69 

are 1) as already indicated, the succession of time, which other- 
wise would be too much interrupted in the gospel of St. John. 
2) the manner, in which St. John mentions this festival ; for it 
is quite probable, that the Evangelist omitted to give the name 
of it because it was not known by those for whom he next 
wrote his gospel, and being of no further importance he con- 
sidered it more proper, to avoid an explication of it;*) 3) the 
very same reason, for which so many authors endeavored to es- 
tablish their opinion for another festival. They supposed to be 
incontestably certain, that four festivals of easter fell within 
the public life of Christ ; but this supposition is not supported 
by tradition ; according to the testimonies of the ancient fath- 
ers there are but three easter festivals to be admitted from the 
baptism of Christ until to His death on the cross, namely the 
first, some months after His baptism, (John, ch. 2, v. 13,) the 
second, for which He came not to Jerusalem, (John, VI, 4), 
and the third, on which He suffered death on the cross, f) (John 
ch 11. 55, 12, 1.) This is according to Petavius,J) the com- 
mon belief of the fathers. Reithmeier§) says therefore, Eusebi- 
us, who on account of the prophecy of Daniel admits four easter 
festivals, stands almost alone among the ancient authors ; hence 
if St. John did not omit any of the easter-festivals within the 
public life of Christ, the festival mentioned ch. 5, v. 1, must 
fall not long before the second easter, and consequently we are 
as A. Maier says, compelled to understand by it the festival of 
Purim.lh 



*) Some manuscripts have the definite article '•'the festival" but A. Maier 
says : there are so strong witnesses against it, that it cannot be any longer 
defended. 

f) Doellinger says without any hesitation: "Zwei Jahre und einige Monate 
waehrte seino offentliche Lehrthaetigkeit" Two years and some months lasted 
His public preaching '•'" Christenthum and Kirche" p, 10. 

X) Petav. de Doctr. temp, torn, II. 1, XII. c. 17 ; he refers to St. Irenaeus, 
adv. Haer. II, 22. n, 3, Origen. c. Cels. II 12, Apollonius Laod. ap. Hieron. in 
Dan IX. 24.— Epiphan. Haers. 51 n. 22. 

$) Reithmeier.l. c. p. 456. 

jj) Some objected, that the Purim were not a festival of obligation : but 



70 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

10. The exposition of the foregoing date being granted to 
be correct, the remaining chronological passages, offer no fur- 
ther difficulties. It is, then evident by itself, that the pass- 
over mentioned, St. John, chap. 6, v. 4, is the second of the 
public life of Christ, or of the year 781, IT. C. After the 
miracle of the multiplication of the bread, and Christ's discourse 
on the succeeding day, St. John remarks: ch. 7, v. 1, "After 
these things, Jesus went about in Galilee ; for He would not go 
about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him ;" indicating 
in these words the cause, why Christ did not go up to the pass- 
over, and also, that he passes over an interlapse of time, the 
events of which he would not describe ; hence he adds imme- 
diately in the second verse: "Now the Jewish feast of taber- 
nacles was at hand." This feast was celebrated six months 
after easter, from the 15th to the 22d of the month of Tis- 
chri, (October,) and like easter and pentecost, called all the 
males to Jerusalem. (Exod. 23, 17.) It was instituted to be 
a memorial of the dwelling of Israel in tabernacles, on their 
way through the desert, and since it fell into the autumn, it was 
also the time of returning thanks to God for the fruit of the 
vine, as well as of other trees, which were gathered about this 
time. Hence it was also called the feast of ingatherings. 
From this we see, that Christ remained in the 781, U. C, from 
spring until fall in Galilee. From this time, as the synoptical 
gospels remark, He announced His passion to His disciples ; this 
is also the sense of St. Luke, chap. 6, 9, 51: " And it came to 
pass, when the days of His being taken up were completed,, 
that He set His face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem." He then 
set out for Jerusalem, yet not openly, but as in secret," (John 
7, 10.) and arrived there, having passed through Samaria, 
(Luke, chap. 9, 52, 53,) about the middle of the festival. On 
this occasion He came, probably, into the house of Mary and 



we answer, the^encenia were neither of obligation, and nevertheless Christ 
went up for this feast to Jerusalem. 



CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. 71 

Martha. After the festival, we find the Lord out of Jerusalem 
again, (St. Luke 10, 17 — 11,) and according to Luke, chap. 
11, 1, probably back in Galilee. In Luke, chap. 13, 22, He is 
said to be again on His way to Jerusalem, teaching in all the 
cities and towns through which He passed. Patritius understands 
this of the journey to the feast of the dedication of the tem- 
ple, or the encenia, towards the end of December, on which 
occasion, according to St. John, He was in Jerusalem, (St. 
John, chap. 10, v. 22.) "And it was the feast of the dedi- 
cation at Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in 
the temple, in Solomon's porch." Therefore, all that we read in 
Luke, chap. 10, 17 — chap. 13, 11, Patritius places between the 
feast of tabernacles and the encenia. The Jews becoming ex- 
tremely exasperated against Him, He went again beyond the 
Jordan, to that place where John first baptised, and there He 
abode. (John, chap. 10, 39, 40.) Not long afterward, He was 
called in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, to Bethania, by the 
death of Lazarus, whom He raised to life again. In conse- 
quence of this miracle, the Sanhedrim devised to put Him to 
death. Wherefore, Jesus walked no more openly among the 
Jews, but retired to Ephrem, near the desert. Thence, how- 
ever, He probably returned soon to Galilee.*) Patritius, f) 
therefore, places all that we read, St. Luke, chap. 13, v. 23, 



*) St. Luke, chap. 13, 31., plainly shows that Christ was again in Gali- 
lee. 

f) To our great satisfaction, we read in Pavrit., P. II, 417: u Iter a Lucarela- 
tum c. 17, v. ii, illud est, quo Christus, Ephremo profectus, eque Judaea, per- 
Samarium in Galilaeam regressus, inde Hierosolymam ultimo ire perrexit, in- 
que earn pervenit paucis diebus ante obitum ; neque putes inceptum hoc iter 
post ilia, quae ante c. 17, v. ii, leguntur, nam Christi ex urbe Ephremo in 
Galilaeam reversi Lucas superius in c. 13, 31. jam meminerat, et quaecumque is 
retulit post c. 13, 22, omnia post Christi ex ilia urbe discessum. et in Galilaeam 
adventum acta sunt ; sed nunc mentionem itineris hujus postremi, dudum 
incepti, Lucas injecit, ut nos doceat. turn ea, quae proxime narravit, turn 
quae statim est narraturus, intra illud tempus evenisse. quo Christus hoc it- 
er faciebat. Modus ipse, quo Lucas loquitur, id evincit : non dicit Christum 
tunc iter incepisse, sed quam iter facer et. 



72 IMMUNITY FROM ERRORS. 

until chap. 18, 31, between the retreat to Ephrem. and His 
last journey to Jerusalem. St. Luke, says, in chap. 17, v. 11 : 
" And it came to pass, as He was going to Jerusalem, He passed 
through Samaria and Galilee." This seems strange, but it 
Jesus, on His last journey to Jerusalem, set out from Ephrem, 
and intended, on His way, to visit Galilee once more, He had 
first to pass through Samaria, before He came to Galilee. In 
the month of Adar, He was in Capernaum, where He paid the 
double drachm for the temple, which tax was collected in this 
month, (Matth. 17, 23.) Finally, easter drawing near, Jesus 
took to Him the twelve, and said to them : " Behold, we go to 
Jerusalem," etc., (Matth. 20, 17, Mark 10, 22, Luke 18, 
31.) He took the way to Jericho, and it was probably the 
evening of the Sabbath, six days before the passover, accord- 
ing to St. John, when He arrived in Bethania. There He rested 
on the Sabbath,*) and entered the day after, or Sunday, in sol- 
emn procession into Jerusalem. Henceforth, we are sufficient- 
ly informed to follow the Lord, from day to day, until His 
death on the cross. To resume, now, the principal dates of the 
second year, (781, U. C.,) and the last three months of the 
public life of Christ, we are entitled from the foregoing, to 
state, as follows : Christ, having come to Galilee about the end 
of the first year, (780, U. C.,) went up to Jerusalem again af- 
ter two months, towards the end of February ; returned soon to 
Galilee, and remained there, without going up to Jerusalem to 
the passover, until the month of September, when He went up to 
the feast of tabernacles ; He returned again to Galilee, and re- 
mained there until the end of December, when He visited the 
feast of the dedication at Jerusalem ; thence He went beyond 
the Jordan, in the country of Perea, but soon after He was in 
Bethania near Jerusalem, from whence He retired to Ephrem, 
probably in the month of January, of the year 782, U. C. In 



*) Constat ex iis, quae diximus, Matth. 26, 2, Christum in illo ultimo redi- 
tu, quo ex Galilaea in Judaeam venit, pridie Sabbati Bethaniam venisse, 
ipso vero Sabbato ibiquievisse, ubi illi coenam magnam fecerunt. Maldonat. 



. OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 73 

February, He was once more in Capernaum, and set then out, 
teaching on the way and therefore slowly moving, on His last 
journey to Jerusalem, which He entered on the 1st day of the 
passion-week, the 10th of Nisan, 782, U. C. 



YIl.—The Outlines of the Life of Christ. 

1. — THE GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 

1. Having investigated the chronological dates of the gos- 
pels, and thus having gained already the main outlines of the 
life of Christ, we must now enter more into the detail of it. 
principally for two reasons, first, in order to clear up the most 
obvious difficulties which we encounter in the four gospels, and 
secondly, to bring nearer to the mind of the reader the full 
historical reality of the life of the Man-God, the God made 
flesh on earth ; for to know Him, and to bear it in the mind, 
that He really dwelt among us, that men saw His glory, the 
glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, 
this is indeed life everlasting. We hope, therefore, that this 
part of our treatise will be also of some practical use, though 
our principal design, to be faithful to our first purpose, must 
also in this part be to solve the difficulties in the gospels for the 
intellect, and rather to enlighten the mind, than to move the 
heart. Such a difficulty stares at us at the first step on our 
path. For in two of the gospels, of St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
a genealogy of Christ is embodied, and there are great differ- 
ences and even apparent contradictions between both of these 
genealogies. We cannot avoid entering on them, but we will 
be as short as possible. 

2. Even in the first centuries, two great differences were ob- 
served in these two genealogies; 1) that each of them enumerates 



74 GENEALOGIES. 

different ancestors of Christ ; and 2) that according to St. Luke ? 
Joseph was the son of Heli, whilst Matthew calls him the son 
of Jacob. To solve these objections, Eusebius, in the 1st book 
of his ecclesiastical history, ch. 7, refers to the friend ot Origen, 
Julius Africanus, who gives the following explication, as being 
founded on tradition, coming down from the relations (consan- 
guinei) of Christ ; he writes in his epistle to Aristides : " Ma- 
than and Melchi, since they had successively the same woman 
for their wife, have received from her children, who were uter- 
ine brothers, that is, born of the same mother from Estha 

(for this we have received as the name of that woman) first Ma- 
than, who descended from the line of Solomon, had the son Jacob; 
after Mathan's death, Melchi who led back his origin to Na- 
than (another son of David), as he descended from the same 
tribe, but from a different family, married her (Estha, the widow 
of Mathan) and had from her the son Heli. Thus we find that 
Jacob and Heli, though they descended from different lines, 
were uterine brothers. Of whom the one, namely Jacob, when 
his brother Heli had died without offspring, took the widow of 
the deceased for his wife, and begat of her Joseph, who was by 
natural relation his son, whence it is written: " and Jacob be- 
gat Joseph ;" but who was according to the law, the son of Heli, 
since to him Jacob, his brother, had raised seed." (Deuter. 25, 
5, 10). This solution of the difficulty is approved of by Euseb- 
ius, Gregory of Nazianz, Augustin and Joannes Damascenus, 
and indeed, we cannot see, what could be objected to it, even if 
it was not based on tradition, but only a conjecture of Julius 
Africanus ; for there is no doubt, that with the Jews, the names 
in genealogies were given either according to the order of nat- 
ural or legal descent. The order of natural descent, means 
the succession of the legitimate children to their fathers ; the 
order of the legal descent gives the succession of the children 
according to the law of the levirate-marriage. If an Isrealite 
died without male offspring, the brother or the next relation of 
the deceased had to marry the wife of the defunct, the children, 



OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 75 

however, begotten in such a marriage, were legally considered 
to be the offspring of the deceased, not of their natural father. 
An Israelite, therefore, could have two fathers, and two pedi- 
grees, one by nature, the other by law ; and this was according 
to Julius Africanus also the case with Joseph. Moreover it is 
well explained, how Jacob and Heli could be brothers, without 
having the same lineage ; they were step-brothers, having the 
same mother, but different fathers, of whom one descended 
from David through Solomon, the other through Nathan.*) 
The difference of the ancestors of Christ, up to David, in the 
two genealogies, cause, considered in this light, no further diffi- 
culty. 

3. St. Augustine, though he approved of the foregoing com- 
bination, proposes two other ways to evade the difficulty; 1) that 
Joseph, being the son of Jacob, could be the son of Heli by adop- 
tion, not by the levirate-marriage ; 2) that Heli was the grand- 
father of Joseph from his mother's side. The first supposition has 
been afterwards more developed, but without any success. Some 
supposed, Heli is synonymous with Heliakim, Joachim, and con- 
cluded thence, that Heli was the actual father of the blessed Vir- 
gin and the adoptive-father of Joseph. According to this, St. Luke 
would give at once the natural genealogy of the blessed Virgin, 
and the legal of Joseph, of whom St. Matthew gives the natural 
lineage. Modern authors tried to improve this hypothesis by 



*) Patritius enters in a very extensive dissertation on this point. He re- 
jects the opinion of those, who supposed Joseph to be the son of Heli by 
adoption ; such an adoption, he says, was not in use with the Jews, III ? p. 
94. He approves of the solution, given by Julius Africanus, p. 97, but he 
endeavors to make it more perfect .; he thinks, that Joseph and the blessed 
Virgin were also near relations, the father of the blessed Virgin being a 
brother of Joseph from the same mother, but from another father. Also 
Clopas was a brother of Joseph. Mary Clopas was not the wife, but the 
daughter of Clopas, and hence a cousin of the blessed Virgin p. 104. We 
have no doubt of Joseph, being a brother of Clopas, but we cannot believe 
after all, that Patritius produced, neither that the father of the blessed Vir- 
gin was a half-brother of Joseph, nor that Mary Clopas was the daughter of 
Clopas ; we shall see more of it further on below. 



76 GENEALOGIES. 

a different interpretation of St. Luke; instead of "Jesus be- 
ing, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph, son of Heli" they 
translate : " Jesus being (though he was supposed to be the son 
of Joseph) the(grand) son of Heli, (by Mary, whose father he 
was). But we have to say against both of these conjectures, 
1) that, as Patritius shows, there was no such adoption usual 
with the Jews, 2) that the modern translation is too violent, to 
be defended, 3) that it is not probable, that Heli and Joachim are 
synonymous names, and even if it were, nothing could be de- 
rived from it ; for the names of the parents of the blessed Vir- 
gin are of a late, doutbful tradition.*) Finally there was no 
need of giving the genealogy of the blessed Virgin; the fact 
of her espousals to Joseph enabled the evangelist to prove our 
Lord's descent from David sufficiently through him. Although 
not the real father of Christ, he was legally reputed such, and 
this with much better right, than if he had been the father of 
a son by the law of leviration.f) 

3. Of the other difficulties, raised against the genealogies, we 
will touch but two more, (the others, as less important,) omit- 
ting. The first of them is that between Joram and Ozias three 
descents are omitted by St. Matthew ; for Jor am was father of 
Ochozias, who was father of Amazias, the father of Ozias. Why 
are they here omitted ? We answer 1) because the object of the 
composer of a genealogy is not exactly to enter into all details, 
but to trace the descents in a sufficiently clear connection; 2) 



*) The most ancient notice of the parents of the blessed Virgin, Joachim 
and Anna, is contained in the apocryphical protevangeliuni Jacobi c. I, dat- 
ing back to the second century. From this it passed over into other apo- 
cryphial works f. ex, Evang. de nativ Mariae c. I. The latin Fathers down 
to the 6th century rejected most decidedly this and similar traditions. St. 
Jerom calls them " deliramenta apocryphorum," Jnnoc. I. in ep. ad Exsup : 
says, "Cetera autem, quae sub nomine Jacobi minoris scripta sunt, non^olum 
repudianda. verum etiam noveris esse damnanda, " Schegg. St. Luke. I. 
493. 

f) Patitrius : M Longe verius Christi pater dici potuit, quam si hujus pater 
legalis fuisset, utpote cui vivo, ex ipsa sua solius uxore, in ipso conjugio et 
absque alius viri opera, Christus ortus est. III. g. 105. 



OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 77 

as from v. 17, appears, the composer of the genealogy intend- 
ed to obtain a conformity in the three periods of the descents, 
ascribing to each fourteen generations ; hence he had to omit 
some of them in the second period, and he omitted, according 
to the opinion of the fathers, just these three kings on account 
of their wickedness, or of their connection with Achab and Jez- 
abel, who were cursed by Elias, 3 Kings. 21, 21. To the ques- 
tion, for which purpose the periods were made uniform, we an- 
swer with Calmet, it was done by the composer for the sake of 
memory, as it was usual with the Jews ; St. Matthew inserted it, 
as he found it, because it was essentially correct. 

The other difficulty exists in regard to Jechonias ; for 1) he 
was not the son, but the grand-son of Josias, and the son of 
Joakim. 2) Jechonias had probably no brothers ; therefore it 
is conjectured by Calmet, that a link of this chain has been 
dropped through the mistake of the copyist; in 1 paral. Ill, 15. 
Joakim is said to be the son of Josias, " and of Joakim was 
born Jechonias;" he will then read: " Josias begot Joakim 
and his brethren ; and Joakim begat Jechonias about the time 
of the migration to Babylon." Yet no reliable manuscript 
supports such a correction. Therefore we consent to those, who 
say, the name of Joakim has been intentionally dropped, for 
what reason, we do not know; by the brethren of Jechonias 
we understand his cousins, the sons of Sedekias, the brother of 
Joachim. The next descendants of Jechonias bear the same 
name, as in the genealogy of St. Luke the descendants of Neri. 
This is with all probability explained, by saying that Jechon- 
ias died in prison without issue ; hence Salathiel was the actual 
son or grand-son of Neri, but at the same time the legal son of 
Jechonias, according to the law of the leviration. A similar 
occurrence took place afterward again with Zorababel. Ken- 
rick says, Zorababel was the son of Phadaia, brother (?) of Sal- 
athiel. 1, Paralip. Ill, 19. Probably his father married the 
relict of the uncle, dying without issue, and thus he was deemed 
in law, the son of Salathiel. 



78 GENEALOGIES. 

2. — THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. 

1. Though according to our opinion, it cannot be proved 
that, as some suppose, one of the two genealogies gives the de- 
scent of Mary from the tribe of Juda and the house of David, 
yet this, that she was from the said tribe and house, can be 
shown from other sources. Marriage was not to be sought out 
of the tribe,*) hence we are enabled to conclude with all cer- 
tainty, that Mary belonged to the tribe of Juda. And then, 
Christ could not be said, as we read in the ep. to the Romans, 
ch. 1, 3, to be born of the seed of David, according to the flesh, 
if Mary, of whom He assumed the flesh, was not the decend- 
ant of David. Hence St. Augustine says, we believe also that 
Mary was of the house of David, because we believe the Scrip- 
ture, stating both that Christ was from the seed of David, ac- 
cording to the flesh, and that the Virgin Mary was His mother. 
The Greek fathers seem to have given more credit to the tra- 
ditions on the parents of Mary, than the Latin ; St. Gregory 
of Nyssa,f) and EpiphaniusJ) call them Joachim and Anna. — 
Mary had, according to John, (chap. 19, 25,) a sister of the 
same, or a similar name ;§) yet whether this Mary was a sister 
in the strict sense, or a cousin, or perhaps some connection of 
affinity by marriage, whom the Hebrews also called sister, we 
shall see further on below. 

2. It has been transmitted from ancient times, that the Vir- 
gin Mary was offered up to the Lord, in her infancy by her 
parents, in the temple of Jerusalem, where she then remained 
until the time of her nuptials; there are no historical docu- 
ments extant, to prove this duly, yet it is a very acceptable 
opinion, according to those passages, where we read of women 
being in the temple. In Exod. chap. 35, v. 8, we read, that 

*) Num. 36, 37, "And all women shall take husbands of their own tribe." 
f) Orat. in nat. Christ. 
X) Haeres. 78. 

\) Some say, the name of the Blessed Virgin is Mariam, (Mirjam in Syri 
ac) and that of her sister u Maria." 



THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. 79 

women watched at the door of the tabernacle; Josaba, the 
daughter of King Joram, hid the child Joas, and his nurse for 
six years in the house of the Lord, from the face of Athalia, 
so that he was not slain, 4 King, ii, 2, 3. And who knows 
not what we read in St. Luke, chap. 2, v. 36. "And there was 
one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe 
of Aser; she was far advanced in years, and had lived with 
her husband seven years from her virginity, and she was a 
widow until fourscore and four years, ivho departed not from the 
temple, by fasting and prayers, ivorshiping night and day."*) 
Hence, nothing prevents us to admit the aforesaid tradition. 

3. That Mary, though espoused to Joseph, was determined 
to preserve her virginity, is most obvious from the answer she 
gave to the heavenly messenger, saying : " How shall this be, 
since I know not man." St. Gregory of Nyssa,f) and St. Au- 
gustine X) gather from these words, that she had made a vow to 
this end. Even H. Grotius acknowledges that in these words 
by Mary, some purpose of perpetual virginity was indicated ; 
and Zeger, another protestant writer, remarks on the said pas- 
sage: "Mary entertains no doubt regarding the effect, but in- 
quires into the manner, in which this could be done, without 
injury to the vow of chastity, (salvo voto pudicitiae.) It was 
once called in question, whether Mary was really married to 
Joseph ; some said, there existed but a promise of marriage 
between them.§) But according to Suarez, it would be now- 
a-days a rash, if not heretical opinion, to deny that Mary was 



*) St. Ambrose in his 1st book de Virginibus says, that he has read virgins 
were appointed for the temple, yet he does not name the author. The Greek 
church had the festival of u Presentation of Mary from ancient times : " in 
the Latin church it was not introduced, according to Thomassin, before the 
year 1372, A. Ch. 

f ) S. Greg. Nyss. Orat. in nat. Christi. 

%) L. de Virg. c. 4. 

|) S. Greg. Nyss. Conjunctio autem non ultra 'jpons alia, (promise of mar 
riage) progrediebatur. Or. in nat. D. 



80 GENEALOGIES. 

truly the wife of Joseph, §) though, however, it was according 
to all a marriage of virginity. These espousals were necessary 
to shield her from censure, since the mystery of the incarna- 
tion could not be at once declared, and proved to the public 
generally.||) And this matrimony in virginity, is not contra- 
dictory, as marriage in its essence does not exclude virginity. 
The common opinion holds, that she was married at the age of 
fourteen years. That Joseph, at that time, was of a very ad- 
vanced age, or that he had been married before, is entirely re- 
jected as a fable of the apocryphs by St. Jerom, who asserts 
in his book against Helvidius, that Joseph likewise remained 
perpetually a virgin. 

4. The place where the Word was made flesh, is Nazareth, 
a city or rather a small village in Galilee, according to St. Luke, 
1, v. 25. The Virgin conferred in a double manner to the ac- 
complishment of the great mystery of our redemption, the in- 
carnation of the Word, (Logos) first, by the consent which she 
gave, saying: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done 
to me according to thy word;" whence it is the common 
opinion, that in the moment when these words were pronounced, 
the conception of the Word has been effected in the virginal 
womb ; secondly, she conferred to this great work of the divine 
power and wisdom, also, in a physical manner ; for the sub- 
stance of the human body of Christ, was not only conceived 
in her and by her, but also from her ; for she gave to the for- 
mation of this body the same that other mothers give in the 
conception of their offspring ; yet as this human body of Christ, 
together with His human soul, had no subsistence for itself, 
but subsisted in the divine person of the Word, the Virgin is 
not only the mother of Christ, but properly and truly the 
mother of God;*) the human nature of Christ, considered sep- 

g) Benedict. XIV, de festis B. M. V. 
||) Kenrick. St. Matth. p. 35. 

*) " Matrem quoque Dei proprie dici apparet, quod divina persona termi- 
nus est completus conceptions. ; ' Benedist. XIV. de festis B. M. V. p. 266. 



THE BLESSEB VIRGIN MARY. 81 

arate from the divine person, possesses no physical reality, but 
is a mere abstraction of our intellect. The title of mother of God 
can, therefore, not be denied to the Virgin, without destroying 
or denying the mystery of the Incarnation. — It is an ancient 
tradition, that the Word was made flesh on the 25th of March,, 
the same day on which, according to the same tradition, Christ 
died on the cross. f) 

5. St. Luke relates ch. i, v. 39, that " Mary rising up in 
those days, went with haste into the hilly country, to a city of 
Juda ; and she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted 
Elizabeth." The city, where Zachary resided, was a sacer- 
dotal city of Juda, and because of the sacerdotal cities of Juda 
especially Hebron was situated in the mountains, it is common- 
ly believed that this city was the place whither Mary went 
with haste. f) Elizabeth is called by the angel the cousin*) of 
Mary ; hence that they were related, is certain ; but by what 
connection, and in what degree, is not known. 

6. The traditions concerning the place and time of the death 
of the Virgin vary a good deal. Cardinal Bona considers it 
more probable that she lived sixty-three years on earth ; others 
extend her life to seventy-two years. In regard to the place 
the authors are divided between Jerusalem and Ephesus. Avoid- 
ing a controversy which leads to no result, we say with Bene- 
dict. XIV, who examined all the different opinions, only so 

f)Sicut a majoribus suscipiens Ecclesiae custodit auctoritas, octavo Kal- 
endas Aprilis conceptus creditur Christus, quo et passus. St. August, lib. 
4. de Trinit, cap. 5. 

f ) Baronius at least is of this opinion ; others say, that nothing is known 
about it. Patritius denies that it was Hebron, and maintains, that it was the 
city of Jutha, one of the less known cities of Juda, cf. c. Josua 15, 55. Ac- 
cording to this opinion the spelling of the present text would be not correct. 
Patrit. I, p. 107. 

*) In the Greek avyylv-qq^ i. e, cognata, or affinis. — Elizabeth was on 
the father's side of the daughters of Aaron (v. 5.) yet on the mother's side 
she ntight be of the house of David. For those two familes often intermar- 
ried, as an earnest of the uniting of the royalty and the priesthood in the 
Saviour. "Patrit. Ill, p. 19, referring to Epiphan. Haer. 78, al. 58. 
6 



82 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

much is certain, 1) that the Virgin really underwent the phys- 
ical death, that is, the separation of her soul from the body; 
2) that, however, this separation was not permanent, but that 
soon after the death her body was reunited with her soul, and 
abides now in a glorified state in heaven ; for though on the 
assumption of the body of Mary nothing is found in the fath- 
ers of the first centuries, except perhaps the expression " as- 
sumption" wherefrom, however, nothing definite can be derived, 
yet this opinion, became the unanimous belief, more from 
interior than exterior reasons, of the authors of later times, of 
Gregory of Tours, of St. Ildephons, of Peter Damiani, of 
St. Thomas and in general of all scholastic doctors; among 
the Greeks, St. Germanus of Constantinople and St. Joannes 
Damascenus are especially to be mentioned. Adding to these 
authorities the testimony of liturgical books, as the Sacramen- 
tarium Gelasianuni,*) the ancient Gothic and Gallican Miss- 
als, Suarez draws the conclusion, that, though the assumption 
of the mother of God with her body is no defined article 
of faith, yet one, who would impugn this opinion, must be con- 
sidered to be of great temerity. And certainly, if we believe, 
that the body of Christ is taken from the substance of the body 
of the Virgin, and that the same body of Christ is the source 
of life for mankind in the most blessed Sacrament, it is revolt- 
ing to think, that the body, from which the bread of life has 
its origin, should possibly become the prey of corruption. Let 
the heretics scoff as they please at this belief; it cannot be de- 
nied, that consistency sides with us. 

*) St. Gregory M. gives in the Sacramentariura of the Gelasian codex 
this oratio for the festival of the assumption : "Veneranda nobis, Domine, 
hujus diei festivitas opem conferat salutarem, in qua Sancta Dei Genitrix 
mortem subiit temporalem, nee tamen mortis nexibus deprimi potuit, quae 
Filium Tuum de se genuit incarnatum. Bened. XIV. 1, c. p, 294. 



THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 83 

3. THE SO-CALLED BRETHREN (BROTHER,?) OF THE LORD. 

1. We find frequently mentioned in the gospels the ''breth- 
ren of the Lord." When Christ, after the wedding in Cana, 
went down to Capharnaum, besides His mother and His disci- 
ples, also His brethren went down with Him ; and again, when 
He was speaking to the multitude (Matth. 12, 46. Mark 3. 31, 
Luke 8, 19,) one said to him : Behold Thy mother and Thy 
brethren stand without seeking Thee. When He came, per- 
haps the last time, to Nazareth, and taught in the Synagogue, 
they wondered and said : ■ "Whence has this man His wisdom and 
miracles? Is not this the son of the carpenter? Is not His 
mother called Mary, and his brethren James and Joseph (Jos- 
es) and Simon and Jude ? and His sisters are they not all with 
us ? (Matth. 13, 54—56, Mark. VI., 3.) When the feast of the 
tabernacles was at hand, (in the year 781, U. C.) His brethren 
said to him: "Pass from hence and go into Judea, that Thy 
disciples also may see Thy works which Thou doest ;" for nei- 
ther did His brethren believe in Him, (John 7, 3. 5,). They 
are mentioned again in the Acts 1. 14, and also St. Paul speaks 
of them (1 Cor. 9, 6,); in the ep. to the Galatians (ch. 1, v. 19) 
he calls James the brother of the Lord. — St. Augustine asks : 
" Whence had our Lord brethren ? Did Mary bring forth other 
children?" Far away this thought; for with her the dig- 
nity of virgins took its rise Read the Scripture, and you 

will find that the uncle and sister's son are called brothers ; and 
having this usage present to mind, you will perceive that all 

the relations of Mary are styled brothers of Christ When 

you hear of the brethren of the Lord, think of the kindred of 
Mary, not of any children of hers, for as in the tomb, where 
the body of the Lord was placed, no one was laid before or 
afterwards, so the womb of Mary neither before nor af- 
terwards conceived anything mortal."*) This is, no doubt, 

*) Kenrick to St. John, eh. 2, and ch. 7. 



84 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

the true sense of the word, " brethren" in the quoted passages. 
This is the belief of the Catholic Church on this question. Yet 
as the protestants have a peculiar propensity, to degrade vir- 
ginity and consequently also the Virgin of Virgins, we must 
show more positively, that the Scripture only in this sense 
speaks of the brethren of the Lord. 

2. There can be no doubt, that according to the Hebrew and 
the Hellenistic idiom and use of language the same words which 
they used to signify brother and sister in the strict sense, were 
also used to designate near relations;*) we refer to the first 
book of Moses ch. 13, v. 8, 14, 16, ch. 24, 59, 60. If you 
compare the Greek version of the Septuagint on these pass- 
ages, you will find that the same word, used in the above giv- 
en quotations of the brethren of the Lord, is continually used 
for denoting near relations. Hence any unpredjudiced mind 
must admit that from the word "brethren" brothers in the 
strict sense cannot be inferred, as this term is also used pro- 
miscuously in a wider sense. Still as the word "brethren" 
itself, having a double sense, does not decide anything, the 
question is now, is there no other way to show in which sense 
this term must be understood exactly in the passages that speak 
of the "brethren of the Lord?" Do we not know anything 
more definite of these " brethren of the Lord," who they were? 
This we have now to investigate. 

3. Among the three Marys who stood under the crossf) on 



*) TVahl. in his "Clavis N. T. philologica says sub voce" afietyoc "Vid- 
entur tamen ad quamcunque necessitudinem vocabulum" adeXdog transfer- 
entes Scriptores sacri secuti esse Hebraeorum dicendi rationem in adhiben- 
do vocabulo t\H, (ach) minus accuratorum ; est igitur — adelqos, in N. T. sae- 
pius u consanguineus, consobrinus, cognatus^ Matth. 12, 46 ; 13, 55 ; loan. 
7, 3, Act. 1, 14, Galat, 1, 19.)Schirlitz in bis " Woerterbuch zum N. T. 
says sub voce " ade?.o6g. " that in the passages that speak of the brethren of 
the Lord, it must be understood of relationship. S. v. 'lanoftog he admits, 
that James the minor was the son of Alpheus and Mary, and at the same time 
a brother of Joses who is called a brother of the Lord." 

f) Matth. 27, 56. Mark. 15 40. Joann. 19, 25. St. Mark calls expressly 
Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses. 



THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 85 

Calvary, one is distinguished from the two others, from Mary 
the Mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalen, by being called 
-Mary of James and of Joseph (Joses).*) Comparing these 
passages with Matth. ch. 13, y. 55. and Mark ch. 6, v. 13, we 
will approach one step nearer to the desired result ; in both of 
these passages the names of the "brethren of the Lord" are 
given, namely "James and Joses and Simon and Jude;"f) mav 
not these "James and Joses" be identical with "James and 
Joses," the sons of Mary, distinguished from the other Marys 
by being called " Mary of James and Joses ?" Let us go one 
step further. Mary the mother of James and Joses, is said to 
be the sister%) of the mother of Jesus ; hence James and Joses, 
the sons of Mary of James, could be properly called the 
"brethren of Jesus" according to the stated use of the term 
"brethren" in the Hebrew language. Again: "James the 
apostle is called the brother of the Lord (Galat. i, 19,) ; is 
this James the apostle identical with James, the son of Mary 
of James ? In the four catalogues of the apostles, the same 
apostle is called James (the son) of Alpheus (Jacobus Alphaei). 
St. John, in the passage quoted, gives a similar epithet to Mary 
of James ; he calls her§) Mary of Clojoas. ISfow it is agreed 
on by all partiesjj) that Alplieu§ and Clopas are one and the 
same name in the Hebrew language, the difference of them 
only consisting in a different punctuation and pronunciation^) 



*) Mark. 16, 1. The same Mary is shorter called : 'Mary of James," Luc. 
•24. 10. and "Mary of Joses" Mark. 15. 47. 

f) It deserves to be noticed that James and Joses are in both passages 
placed first what may have some connection with Mary's being distinguished 
by them rather, than by Jude and Simon. 

X) Joann. 19. 25 compared -with Matth. 27. 56. Mark. 15, 40. and Luke. 
24, 10. 

$) Mapia f] rov K/,Q-a. Joann. 19. 25. 

||) Lighfoot, Gesenius, Wahl, Patritius, Haneberg, Schirltiz, R-eithmeier, 
A. Maier, etc. 

j) The radical letters (or consonants) of the name are "£)7n- i- e - CHLPI ; 
adding to the consonants the vowels by punctuation, we may either get 
Chlopehj punctuating *£T?r( , or Chalphei by punctuating , £37 H- The first 



86 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

of the same word according to the rules and the genius of the 
Hebrew language. Hence we know that James the apostle who is 
the brother of the Lord, is the son of Clopas, and consequently 
stands in a near relation to Mary of James, also called Mary of 
Clopas and the sister of the mother of Jesus. And what is this re- 
lationship exactly between them ? Mary of Clopas is the mother 
of a son who is called James; the apostle James is the son of Clopas 
(Alphaeus) ; who will deny that the son of Clopas and the son 
of Mary of Clopas are one and the same person, Mary being 
the wife of Clopas and consequently the mother of James, the 
son of Clopas? But James, the apostle the son of Clopas is 
emphatically called the " brother of the Lord;" hence we 
know, who is James the first among the brethren of the Lord, 
mentioned in the gospels ; it is James, the apostle, who is the 
son of Clopas, and Mary of Clopas, the sister of the mother of 
Jesus ; but by this we know also the second of the brethren of 
the Lord, named Joses ; for Mary of Clopas is the mother of a 
second son, named Joses, who with the same right, as James, 
the apostle, is called a brother of the Lord ; who will not 
see the identity between the two first of the brethren of the 
Lord and the two sons of Mary of Clopas ? The brethren of 
the Lord are James and Joses ; and the two sons of Mary of 
Clopas, James and Joses are (called) the brethren of the 
Lord. 

4. St. Mark calls the third of the brethren of the Lord by 
the name of Jude ; do we know any thing more of this Jude ? 
The author of the epistle of St. Jude, among our canonical 
books, styles himself a " servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of 
James. 1 ' Who is this James, whose brother is Jude, the author 
of the epistle, who no doubt is identical with Jude Thaddeus, 



letter Ch ( pj ma 7 ^ e transformed by a softer pronunciation into He ^, or 
Aleph ( tf.), the difference between them being not greater, than in Greek 
between spiritus asper and spiritus lenis, or in the modern languages between 
h asperated and h mute, f. ex. hand, heir. 



THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 87 

the apostle?*) In two of the catalogues of the apostles, (Matt. 
10, v. 3, and Mark 3, 15,) Thaddeus is paired without any oth- 
er epithet, with James of Alpheus ; in the two other catalogues, 
(St. Luke, 6, 16, and acts 1, 13,) Jude is not paired with James 
of Alpheus, but instead of it he is surnamed (the brother) 
of James. Now it appears at least, very likely, that James 
whose brother Jude is called by St. Luke, is no other James 
but James of Alpheus, with whom he is paired by St. Matth. 
and St. Mark. This is more confirmed, if we consider attentively 
the manner in which St. Jude calls himself the brother of James 
in the beginning of his epistle ; for it cannot be denied, that he 
calls himself by this epithet, with some emphasis, f to character- 
ize, and distinguish himself in a particular manner to those to 
whom he writes, closely connecting it with his apostolic title, 
" a servant of Jesus Christ." From this we necessarily infer 
that the James whose brother Jude calls himself, must be a per- 
son of great authority, and notoriety. But we know but one 
James, possessing such a high standing, namely, James the 
apostle, the son of Alpheus, the brother of the Lord, who is 
called by St. Paul one of the pillars of the church. But if 
Jude is undoubtedly the brother of James of Alpheus, he is, 
like James himself, also, another brother of the Lord, which is 
confirmed by St. Mark and St. Matthew, who state that one of 
the brethren of the Lord is called "Jude" 

5. Having identified three of the brethren of the Lord to 
be the sons of Clopas and Mary, the sister of the mother of 
Jesus, we might conclude, by way of induction, that the fourth 
of them, Simon, will be in the same predicament ; yet we have 
for this fact, more positive arguments, though not, as in the 



*) That Jude, the brother of James, is one of the apostles, follows evident- 
ly from Luke 6, 16, and acts 1, 13, where to distinguish this apostle, from 
Judas Iscariote. he is surnamed Judas Jacobi, that is, Jude the brother of 
James. 

f) The Greek text could be translated > '• Jude a servant of Christ, but 
also (Si) James, brother. 



00 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

foregoing discussion, from Scripture alone, but from tradition ; 
for this Simon is nowhere else mentioned in the Scripture, ex- 
cept in the two passages where he is named among the breth- 
ren of the Lord. Some authors, we know, mistook this Simon 
to be identical with the apostle Simon, the Zealot, also sur- 
named the Chananean ; *•) but this caused only confusion ; tra- 
dition is decidedly against it. This Simon is a different per- 
son, and no apostle. Hegesippus, the first church-historian, 
who wrote about 150, A. Ch., the history of the church of Jer- 
usalem in five books, relates that all unanimously have consid- 
ered Simon, the son of Clopas, of whom, also, the gospel makes 
mention, to be worthy of the see of that community, (paroe- 
cia,) namely of Jerusalem, being, as they say, a cousin of the 
Saviour, f) Again : " And after James, the Just, had suffered, 
like the Lord, in the same cause, again the son of His uncle, 
namely Simeon, the son of Clopas, was appointed bishop, to 
whom all gave the preference, being another cousin of the 
Lord.%) In another passage, Hegesippus repeats the same re- 
lationship of Simeon ; speaking of his martyrdom, he says : 
" Under the Cesar Trajan, the son of an uncle of the Lord, the 
aforesaid Simeon, son of Clopas, having been denounced by the 
sects, was accused likewise, for the same cause before Atticus, 
once consul. And having been tortured many days, he gave 
testimony, (for his faith,) so that all, and also the judge, won- 
dered exceedingly, how he, being 120 years old, could endure 
it; and then he was ordered to be crucified. "§) These cjuota- 



*) Matth. 10, 4. The Protestant versions gives Canaanite, which corres- 
ponds with the Vulgate. Some read Cananite, as if born in Cana of Galilee. 
Kenrick. 

f) Euseb. H. eccl. II, ii. . . . Svpeova tov tov K?>ujra avE^ibv,^ ye 

<j>acnv, yeyovdra tov ouTTJpos. 

X) Euseb. IV. 22. . . . tt&mv 6 ha -&eiov avrov 2v/ieo)v 6 tov K/lwTrd nad-ioTaTat 
iir'LGKOTToq, bv Tcpok-d-evTo TrnvTeg, bvTa aveipiov tov ttvpiov SevTepov. The two 
words': -xa'/uv and devTcpor determine the sense, and show that also James 
was a son of Clopas, and a cousin of the Lord. 

$) Luseb. H. eccl, III, 32, .... ben fteiov tov nvpiov 6 Tvpoeipquivoc Ivfizuv 
vlo<; K/.a>7rd. 



THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 89 

tions are plain ; we have then a Simeon, who is a cousin of the 
Lord ; his father was Clopas, and is called an uncle of the Lord. 
Simeon was elected after James' death, to be bishop of Jeru- 
salem, because he was another cousin of the Lord, hence James, 
his predecessor, was likewise a cousin of the Lord, and conse- 
quently a son of Clopas or Alpheus. The result, derived from 
our combination of the passages of Scripture, referring to this 
question, is most surprisingly corroborated by the testimony of 
the most ancient and reliable tradition ; before so much light, 
the last shadow of doubt must vanish. It may be, perhaps, 
objected, that the testimony of Hegesippus, is contradicted by 
other testimonies of antiquity ; we answer, such contradictory 
testimonies are of a later date, and mostly derived from spuri- 
ous sources. One point, however, is unanimously maintained 
amidst all variations of the different traditions, namely that 
the so-called "brethren of the Lord," were no uterine brothers, 
or in other words, that the mother of Jesus did not give birth 
to any other offspring ; only some of the Gnostic sects, as the 
Ebionites, entertained contrary opinions, in consequence of 
their other errors, denying the mystery of the incarnation.*) 
But, in order to solve the question, how James and his brothers 
could be called brethren of the Lord, some of the later fathers 
seem to have given too much weight to fabulous traditions, cir- 
culated by apocryphal books, especially the so-called gospels of 
Peter and of James, which relate that Joseph, before he mar- 
ried the Virgin, had been married to another wife, of whom he 
begot four sons, namely, James and his brothers, and two 
daughters ; hence they would have been step-brothers and sis- 
ters of the Lord, in the same sense as Joseph could be called 
the father of Jesus ;f) but St. Jerom stigmatized this tradition 
as a " deliramentum " of the apocryphs. Not much better is 



*) Origen in Luc. horn. 7. torn. V. p 107. ed. Lonrni. 

f) This spurious tradition is probably the cause, that some ancient authors 
denied the identity of James, the brother of the Lord, and James the son of 
Mary of Clopas, what disturbed more yet the original tradition. 



90 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

that which Theophylaet proposes, that they were the sons of 
Joseph, by a matrimony of leviration with Mary, the widow of 
Clopas, the brother of Joseph. Preferable to this, would be 
another supposition, that after the early death of Clopas, his 
children were adopted by Joseph, and formed under him one 
family, with the Lord and His blessed mother. But all such 
opinions are not less gratuitous than superfluous, since we 
know from Scripture and tradition, that the children of Mary 
of Clopas, being the sister of the Virgin, could be called, and 
were really called the "brethren of the Lord." 

6. But one point of the question we passed by in our fore- 
going remarks, without entering on it. We know from St. 
John, ch. 29, 25, that Mary of Clopas, is a sister of the Virgin ; 
yet was she a sister in the strict sense? Some authors answer 
in the positive, and derive from this the near relation between 
her children and the Lord, being cousins of Him by her. Yet 
it is strange that two sisters bear the same name,* and more- 
over it is somewhat against the feeling of a Catholic to speak 
of a real sister of the Mother of God. By a tradition found- 
ed on the testimony of Hegesippus, this difficulty also may be 
removed; for he states not only that Clopas was the uncle of 
the Lord, but also, that Clopas was a brother of Joseph, f) the 
foster-father of the Lord. Hence the sons of Clopas were 
cousins of the Lord by Joseph, His reputed father being the 
broth3r of Clopas. It is therefore not necessary to admit that 
Mary of Clopas is a real sister of the Virgin :J) James and 
his brothers were at least reputed cousins of the Lord without 



*) Only Luke makes some distinction, calling the Virgin Mariara, and 
James' mother Maria. 

f) Euseb. 1. c. li rbv yap ovv K?uj-av a6e?,obv rov 'locf/Q vnapxeiv, 'Ry/'/cin-Trog 
laropel. 

%) Patritius 1. c. maintains that Clopas was not the husband, but the father 
of Mary of Clopas : Moreover, that the father of the Virgin was a brother 
of Clopas and Joseph. Hence Mary of Clopas and the Virgin would be 
cousins, and James, the apostle, not the son of Alpheus or Clopas, but the 
grandson from his mother's side. 



NATIVITY OF CHRIST. 91 

such a near relation of consanguinity with the Virgin, and Mary 
of Clopas could be called her sister by connection of marriage 
or affinity, as the word " sister " is also used in such a wider 
sense. *Y 



4. THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST. 

1. We know from St. Matthew and St. Luke, that Christ 
was born in Bethlehem before the death of Herod, i. e. before 
the year 750, U. C. The great event on which depends the 
salvation of the world, is couched by the Evangelist in the 
simple words : "And she brought forth her first born Son, and 
wrapped Him up in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in the 
manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." The 
fathers observe, concerning the manner in which Christ was 
born, that Mary, as in the conception, so also in the birth of 
Him and after the birth, remained an inviolate Virgin. St. 
Leo gives this tradition as follows : "It is without human use and 
experience, what we believe : but it is founded on the divine 
power, that a Virgin conceived, a Virgin brought forth, and a 
Virgin remained, "f) Against this tradition cannot be con- 
strued what we read Matth. ch. 1, v. 25, "And he [Joseph] 
knew her not, till she brought forth her first born son ;" for 
the words " till she brought forth," etc., is a scriptural form of 
speech, as Campbell acknowledges, which does not necessarily 
imply that Joseph knew her afterwards. J] Thus we read in 
Psalm, 109 : " The Lord said to my Lord : sit Thou on my 



*) Wahl. sub voce "adehpfj. 

f ) Humano usu et consuetudine quod credimus, caret ; sed divina potes- 
tate subnixum est, quod Virgo coneeperit, Virgo pepererit, Virgo per- 
manserit. 

%) Comp. 1 Mos. 8, 7. H. Grotius remarks : That this negation, referring 
to the time before the birth, does not affirm for the time afterwards, has been 
shown by others in many instances, to which I will add what we read Matth. 



92 THE OUTLINES OE THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

right hand, until I make Thy enemies the footstool of Thy 
feet." Will he not sit afterwards? — The expression "first- 
born " does not imply that others were born afterwards. The 
law prescribed offerings to be made for first-born males forty 
days after their birth, when it could not be known whether 
other children would be born to the same parents.*) 

2. St. Luke indicates that the place where Christ was born, 
was a stable ; from tradition it is sufficiently proved that this 
place was outside of Bethlehem, as Justin M. assures us, say- 
ing: " Since Joseph had in that village (of Bethlehem) no 
place where to stay, he put up in a grotto or a cave near to 
the village ;f) and when he was there, Mary brought forth 
Christ, and placed Him in the manger." Origen writes : 
"Any one who might doubt that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, 
may know that in Bethlehem the cave is shown wherein He 
was born, and in the cave the manger in which he was placed, 
wrapped up in swaddling clothes. And this, he continues, is 
in those places well known also to those who are strangers to 
the faith, that in the said cave, Jesus, whom the Christians 
adore, was born. "J) Petavius observes that as the country of 
Bethlehem is very rocky, it is quite credible that the stable in- 
dicated by St. Luke, was a cave into the rocks. "§) 

3. St. Matthew gives us an ample description of the coming 
of the Magi and their adoration, (ch. 2, v. 1-13.) How many 
there were, he says not. Natalis Alexander having examined 
all the different opinions and traditions, comes to the con- 
clusion that it may be called the common belief that there 
were three Magi, confirmed especially by St. Leo, and by the 
author of some sermons ascribed to Eusebius Emissenus. 



*) Kenrick to this passage. St. Jerome says : Primogenitum non eum 
yocant scripturae, quern fratres sequantur sed qui primus natus sit. Comp. 
1 Paral. 9, 5-23, 16, 17. 
! f ) Justin. M. Tryph. p. 303. 

f) Orig. cont. Celsum. I. 31. 

f ) Patrit 1. c. defends the spot, which is venerated down to the present 
day, to be really the identical place where Christ was born 



NATIVITY OF CHRIST. 93 

Tillmont, however, suspects that this opinion is without any 
foundation in tradition, and was merely derived from the three 
gifts that they offered to Christ. Much less we know any- 
thing certain about their names. The question from which 
country they came is also controverted. Good authorities, 
such as Clement of Alexandria, St. Chrysostom, Cyrillus of 
Alexandria, Theodoret, maintain that they were Persians and 
came from Persia. In favor of this opinion is their name 
••Magi," since the Persian priests who worshipped the fire and 
the stars were thus called. Still to the contrary may be 
said, 1) that the name "Magi" at the time of Christ was used 
frequently in a wider sense, denoting any learned or wise man, 
especially such as professed the science of the stars, (astrology;) 
2) with Persia the gospel does not well agree, which says : 
"we have seen the star in the east," as Persia lies rather north 
from Palestine, 3) that Persia is rather too distant. Hence 
some of the fathers, as Origen, Basil, etc, defend the opinion 
that they came from Mesopotamia, principally by this reason 
that the prophecy of Bileam, concerning the star rising from 
the house of Jacob, was in some connection with the star of 
the " Magi ;" now Bileam being of Mesopotamia, it seems very 
probable that the remembrance of this prophecy was preserved 
in said country, and made it possible that the "Magi," observ- 
ing an extraordinary star, concluded from it the birth of the 
promised king from the house of Jacob. But to this conjec- 
ture we answer, that the said prophecy of Bileam was uttered 
in Arabia, or among the Moabites, not in Mesopotamia, and 
consequently, if it was really in some connection with the star 
of the "Magi," it would rather point us to Arabda ; and in 
fact, for the last mentioned country the best authorities and 
strongest reasons seem to stand. 

St. Justin M,*) in several passages and besides him, the an- 
cient Tertullianf) declare Arabia to be the home of the Magi. 



j *) Justin, dial, cum Tryph. 78, 106. 
f) Tertull. adv. Iud, c. 9. adi 



94 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

In the Scripture Arabia is commonly understood by the east; 
the gifts, offered by the "Magi " also accord with that country, 
which was considered to be rich in gold, frankincense and bal- 
sam or myrrh. Moreover according to this opinion the tradi- 
tion of the Magi being kings, could be easily maintained, since 
at that time there were many tribes in Arabia that had their 
own dynasts or little kings. 

3.) Concerning the star of the Magi, we learn from the 
sacred text, 1) that they had seen it in the east ; 2) that 
they had derived from it the knowledge that the King of 
the Jews was born ; 3) that this star which was invisible 
to them at Jerusalem, appeared again to them on their 
way to Bethlehem, aud went before*) them until it came 
and stood over the place where the child was. Of this star 
we have a very ancient tradition which seems to be indepen- 
dent of the relation of St. Matthew ; St. Ignatius M. says in 
his epistle to the Ephesians ch. 19 ; "And it was unknown to 
the prince of this world the virginity of Mary, and likewise her 
childbirth (partus) and the death of the Lord, three mysteries 
of importance (clamor)f) which have been accomplished in the 
silence of God. In what manner then was Christ manifested 
to the world ? A star was shining in heaven over all the stars 
and its light was unspeakable, and its newness caused as- 
tonishment. The other stars, together with the sun 
and moon, formed a chorus around this star ; itself threw 
its light over all." According to this tradition the star 
of the Magi seems not to have been a natural star, but an 
extraordinary meteor. There are however principally three 



J) Patritius questions the correctness of the translation of the Vulgate 
"antecedebat," in the sense, that the star went before them and led them. 
Nunquam anctores bibliorum verbum istud (Hpoyyev) in eum sensum acceper- 
unt quo praecedere simul et ducere significat, quoque dux aciem, aries ovium 
gregem, ducere dicuntur. . .sensus itaque verbi Jlpoyyev in hac narratione est 
stellam a Magi ante se visam, ut nautis astra, viam ipsis indicassee locumque 
quo Christum reperirent, P. Ill, p. 334. 

|) Tpla p.varrjpia Kpavyris, clamoris, 



NATIVITY OF CHRIST. 95 

different opinions concerning the nature of this star. Some 
say it was a star like others, created in the sky ; others, it was 
an angel assuming the form of a star, in a similar manner as 
the angel of the Lord went before the Israelites in the appear- 
ance of the pillar of the cloud by day and the pillar of fire at 
night : others finally think, it was nothing else, but a fieiy me- 
teor within the atmosphere of our globe, formed by an angel in 
the form of a star. The modern writers add a fourth explana- 
tion ; in order not to multiply miracles without necessity, they 
say, that it was a natural star or a natural constellation by the 
ordinary motion of the stars ; the words of the text, speaking 
of its preceding the Magi on their way, must according to 
them not be "urged too much.*) Some of them, therefore, 
endeavored to show, that it was a comet ; Keppler, the great 
law-giver of the motions of the stars, thought, it was an extra- 
ordinary bright conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, which took 
place in the year 747, U. C, in the sign of the pisces. 
This sign of the Zodiac was believed according to the ancient 
rules of astrology to represent in heaven Judea, whence the 
Magi, well versed in this science, could easily come to the con- 
clusion, that the expected great King of the Jews was an- 
nounced by this splendid phenomenon in the sky. 



5. — THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT AND THE RETIRED LIFE AT 
NAZARETH. 

1. The Magi did not return from Bethlehem to Herod, but 
went back another way into their own country. Then, accord- 
to St. Matthew, Joseph, warned by an angel in sleep, took the 
Child and His mother, and retired into Egypt, and he was there 
until the death of Herod. Against these statements, a great 
difficulty is raised from the 2nd chapter of St. Luke ; for he 



*) See above Patritius. 



96 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

says that after the days of His*) purification, according to 
the law of Moses, were accomplished, they (Mary and Joseph) 
carried Him to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord. The 
day appointed for the presentation, was the fortieth after the 
birth. And then St. Luke continues : " And after they had 
performed all things according to the laws of the Lord, they re- 
turned into Galilee, to their city Nazareth." According to the 
first gospel, the birth of Jesus, the coming of the Magi, their 
return, and the flight of Joseph with the Child and His moth- 
er seem to have taken . place in an immediate succession, be- 
fore Joseph had left Bethlehem ; but how could St. Luke say 
without coming in contradiction with Matthew, that the Child 
was presented to the Lord in the temple on the fortieth day 
after His birth, and that Joseph returned after the presenta- 
tion from Jerusalem to Nazareth ? To evade this difficulty, 
some authors assert, that the coming of the Magi did not take 
place, as it is the common opinion, a few days after the birth 
of the Lord, but much later. Joseph, tftey say, had returned 
in the mean time to Nazareth, not to stay there permanently, 
but with the intention to arrange all his affairs in such a man- 
ner as to leave Nazareth entirely, and to take his future abode 
in Bethlehem. At the time, when the Magi came, perhaps a 
year after the birth of the Child, he had already returned to 
Bethlehem ; the flight to Egypt followed then also about a 
year after the birth of Jesus. Yet this conjecture seems to be 
somewhat against the text of St. Matthew who connects the 
coming of the Magi most intimately with the nativity of the 
Lord, saying: " When therefore Jesus was born in Bethlehem 
of Judea, in the days of king Herod, behold there came Magi 
from the east to Jerusalem. f) Moreover it is a very ancient 



*) Thus Kenrick ; see his note to this passage. 

f) Kenrick D. D. remarks on this passage: We know not what length of 
time elapsed after His birth before the arrival of the Magi ; probably nearly 
forty days, since the presentation must have taken place soon afterwards. 



FLIGHT Tt) EGYPT AND LIFE AT NAZARETH. 97 

and constant tradition that the Magi carne thirteen days after 
the birth of the Lord*). 

Schegg in his commentary to St. Luke offers, therefore, an- 
other combination of the stated Evangelical facts ; he supposes 
that the whole that St. Matthew and St. Luke relate, took 
place in a very -short time. The Magi came a few days after 
the birth of the Lord, and returned immediately ; Herod, see- 
ing himself deceived, did not delay the execution of his design? 
hence the flight to Egypt succeeded immediately the return of 
the Magi ; but as the death of Herod occurred not long after, 
the holy family could have returned to Jerusalem perhaps two 
months after the birth of the Lord, the Child was then pre- 
sented to the Lord in the temple at Jerusalem, and from thence 
brought to Nazareth according to the statement of St. Luke. 
But this combination is in direct contradiction with St. Matth. 
2. 22, where we read that Joseph, hearing that Archelaus 
reigned in Juclea, in the room of Herod his father, was afraid to 
go thither, that is, t^Judea. Hence we adopt with Kenrick,f) 
the solution of the difficulty, offered by St. Augustin ; he places 
first the return of the Magi, then the presentation in the tem- 
ple, after this immediately the apparition of the angel to Jos- 
eph and the flight to Egypt ; and from thence the return to 
Nazareth. To the difficulty, how it can be accounted for, ac- 
cording to this combination, that Herod seeing himself deceived,, 



*) The patrons of the aforesaid opinion refer to Matth. 2. 16, where we read 
that ; 'Herod ordered all children to be killed from two years and under." con- 
cluding from this that the Magi came a long while after the birth of Christ ; 
but already St.Chrysostom defends the common opinion against this objection, 
saying that Herod did not limit himself to the space of time, at which the 
Magi had seen the star, but in order not to fail in his object, he extended his 
order much further ; he also adds that the star had appeared to them before 
the birth of the Lord, s6 as to leave them time for their journey. Chrysost. 
Horn. 7, in Matth. 

|) Kenrick on Luke, 2. 39. " They left Jerusalem on their way home to* 
Nazareth, but Joseph being directed by the angel to See beyond the power 
Of Herod, fled to Egypt, and remained there till the death of the ty- 
rant/*' 

7 



98 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

waited so long to take his cruel measures, the same father an- 
swers:*) Herod may have believed that the Magi, having been 
deceived by a delusive appearance of the star, and not finding 
the Child, were ashamed to return to him ; therefore he laid 
aside all fear. But when the Child had been carried to the 
temple and all that occurecl at His presentation, according to 
St. Luke, had reached the ears of Herod, he was roused once 
more to fury ; Joseph, perhaps, already on his way to Nazareth, 
was then warned to retire to Egypt, the more so, as the Child 
was neither safe in Nazareth, this place belonging to the terri- 
tory of which Herod was king. Tillmont remarks, no better 
answer than this, can be given ;f) and though he feels himself 
not perfectly satisfied by it, Benedict XIV, in his work de 
festisj) Domini considers it more wise to acquiesce in the judg- 
ment of so great a doctor of the Church. 

2. Against the massacre of the Innocents by Herod, it has 
been objected that Josephus Flavius, although he treats on the 
life of this tyrant at large, does not mental it. Calmet thinks 
that perhaps Nicolaus of Damascus, whom Josephus Fl. prin- 
cipally followed in his history, had omitted purposely this most 
atrocious deed of Herod, being himself in too near connection 
with the family of this tyrant. Hug, Wetstein, and Is. Vossius 
observe that after so many and enormous deeds of cruelty, 
perpetrated by Herod at Jerusalem and in all Judea, after hav- 
ing put to death so many of his own children, his own wives 
and intimate friends and relations, it appears not to have been 
a deed so very atrocious for him, to have also put to death the 

-*) St. August, de consensu Evang. lib. 2. cap, 2. 

+ ) Patritius gives some more conjectures : but we think none more proba- 
ble than that of St. Augustine. — We venture to suggest to the readers that 
St. Luke if he really had known the gospel of St. Matthew, when writing 
his gospel would scarcely have passed over all these important facts in per- 
fect silence and expressed himself thus as he did. 

t) Bened. XIV, de fest, D. N. I. Ch. n 72. " Nos vero illam responsio- 
nem utpote a maximi ingenii viro et Ecclesiae doctore omnium clarissimo 
ortam venerati, in ipsius Augustini judicio plane conquiescimus." 






FLIGHT TO EGYPT AND LIFE AT NAZARETH. 99 

infants of one small village, as Bethlehem was, and its next 
environ, the number of whom could not be great, since not all 
children but only those of the age of two years, and of them, 
again only the male children, were killed. Schegg estimates 
the whole number of them not higher than from twelve to 
twenty. Moreover Celsus, against whom Origen defended 
Christianity, puts the event forward as an admitted fact.*) St. 
Justin M. mentions it in his dialogue with Tryphon, the Jew.f) 
Also what we read in Macrobius, a pagan author of the fourth 
century, is, though of a late date, of some weight ; he relating 
the "facetiae" of the emperor Augustus, says: "When Au- 
gustus heard that among the children whom under two years 
age Herod had ordered to be killed, also his (Herod's) own son 
had been slain, he said, it is better to be Herod's pig than his 
son." The silence of Josephus and of Philo is, we deem, out- 
weighed by these positive testimonies of antiquity. 

3. The journey to Egypt was not very long : in a few days 
the holy family could reach Alexandria, where the Jews were 
very numerous at that time. Berseba on the southern borders 
of Judea, was not more distant from Jerusalem than Sichem 
in Samaria. During their abode in Egypt they resided accord- 
ing to tradition in Matarea, (now Matarieh) between Cairo and 
Heliopolis. How long they remained there, is not certain ; 
the tradition wavers between two and eight years. After Her- 
od's death they returned, and dwelt in a city called Nazareth. 
(Matth. 2. 23.) St. Luke mentions that Jesus being twelve 
years old, went up to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pass- 
over. Erom the passages where He is called by theNazarenes 
the son of the carpenter, or even the carpenter (Matth. 13, 55, 
Mark. 6, 13) it has been, as we think, rightly concluded, that 
He, humbling Himself to the full excess of His love to man, 
followed in His youth the trade of His reputed father. In 



*) Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 1. n, 58. 
f ) Justin M. Tryph. 78, 79 



100 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

Justin M. writings we find the ancient tradition, that "being 
among men He made ploughs and yokes, by these presenting 
symbols of justice and teaching a laborious life." He, the sec- 
ond Adam, submitted Himself to the sentence pronounced 
against the first Adam, and " ate his bread in the sweat of his 
brow." — Besides this we know nothing of His retired life at 
Nazareth. When He was about the age of thirty years, He 
came to the Jordan, to be baptized by John the Baptist, in the 
first days of the year 780, U. C. 



6. JOHN THE BAPTIST, THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST, THE BEGIN- 
NING OF HIS PUBLIC LIFE. 

1. The origin of John the Baptist, whom also Josephus Fla- 
vius mentions, calling him by the same name, is plainly described 
in the first chapter of St. Luke. In the last verse of this chap- 
ter we read: "And the Child grew and was strengthened 
in spirit and was in the deserts until the day of his manifesta- 
tion to Israel." From this passage it is justly inferred that 
John retired to the deserts at a very early age. St. Matthew, 
ch. 3, v. 1, calls the desert, where John lived, the desert of Ju- 
dea, that is, the mountainous, uncultivated tract of land, that 
extends from the right banks of the brook Ceclron along the 
western coast of the Dead sea.*) Out of this desert he came 
in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cesar into the 
country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of penance 
for the remission of sins. Some authors deduced from Matth. 
3, 14, that he was well acquainted with Jesus of Nazareth ; for 
there we read that, when Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan 
unto John to be baptized, John stayed, him saying : "I ought 



*) The now-a-days so-called lt desertof John," one hour and one-half dis- 
tant from Jerusalem, has no ancient testimony in its favor. " The convent 
of St. John, beautifully situated, claims to be the place where John was 
born." Schegg. 



101 

to be baptized by Thee, and comest Thou to me?" Contradic- 
tory to this seems to be what we read in the first chapter v. 33, 
of John, where the Baptist says of Jesus: "And I knew Him 
not; but He Who sent me to baptize with water, He said to me: 
"He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and re- 
maining on Him, He it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." 
To reconcile these two passages some answer that John knew Je- 
sus personally, His superior wisdorn and sanctity, even that He 
was a prophet and highly honored of God, but he had not 
known that Jesus was the Messiah till the descent of the Holy 
Ghost at His baptism. All that is said in John 1, 33, consists 
in this : that the Baptist, until this evidence by the descending 
of the Holy Ghost was given to Him, did not know Jesus to be 
the Messiah, (Kuinoel, Bloomfield, Kenrick). According to 
A. Maier and others it could be even admitted that John from 
communications, received in his early life, knew Jesus to be the 
Messiah : but he knew it not with such a full evidence, as was 
required for him in order to give testimony of Hhn ; this evi- 
dence he obtained by the fulfillment of the sign, given divinely 
to him, that is, by the descent of the Holy Ghost. The more an- 
cient interpreters, as Calmet, Maldonat, etc., following St. Chry- 
sostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, explain the difficulty in anoth- 
er way ; they say, as we have said above, that John knew Jesus 
of Nazareth not personally, but he knew well that He was the 
expected Messiah. When Jesus came to be baptized, John 
knew first by internal inspiration, that He is the person to be 
manifested as the Messiah, as it had been divinely prom- 
ised to him ; therefore he said : "I ought to be baptized by Thee ;" 
and then, what he had known already by internal testimony, 
was made manifest also externally by the descent of the Holy 
Ghost. §) Sehegg in his commentary to St. Matth. p. 107, 



|) Calmet : "Secreta mentis illustratio, qua Joannes excitatus est, mini- 
me prohibebat, ne prodigiis prolatis res certior efficeretur.'- 



102 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

adopts again this ancient explanation, with some slight modifi- 
cations. 

5. The cause for which Jesus wanted to be baptized by John, 
He Himself expresses in the words (Matth. 3, 15): "Suffer 
it at present; for so it becomes us to fulfil all justice;" that 
is, according to the common interpretation: u It becomes thee 
to give the baptism into penance, because thou are sent for this 
purpose ; it becomes Me to receive this baptism, because as I 
am sent to redeem sinners, I must be counted among them, and 
hence also receive this baptism of penance." Justice, says St. 
Chrysostom, "is the fulfilment of all the commandments." 
He had subjected Himself to the law of circumcision, and of 
presentation ; now He submitted Himself, also, to the baptism 
for which John had been sent. To this the fathers add as an- 
other reason, that the water was to be sanctified by the con- 
tact of the most holy body of Jesus for the baptism of the 
gospel. Concerning the shape of the dove which the Holy 
Ghost assumed in His descent, some of the modern writers con- 
sider it unbecoming, that the Holy Ghost should appear under 
the visible form of a real, living dove ; hence they explain that 
fire fell*) from heaven on Jesus, either with the velocity of a 
dove, or in the shape of a dove. Kenrick says: "Some explain 
it of His descent on cur Lord in some sensible way, as if a 
dove descended, since her manner is peculiar." The fathers 
and ancient authors, however, felt no such delicacy, but un- 
derstood almost unanimously, the words of the Scripture of 
an apparition of the Holy Ghost, under the true shape of a 
real dove.f) But in which way, this dove was formed, or in 



*) It is an ancient tradition, already mentioned by St. Justin M., that fire- 
ell from heaven, and that it thundered at the baptism of Christ. 

f) St. August., ep. 120, ad Evad. : u Sola specie corporali oculis reddita, 
non natura viventis animalis expressa. But in another passage, in agone 
Christ., c. 22, the same father says : " Neque hoc ita dicimus, ut Dominum 
Jesum dicamus solum verum corpus habuisse, Spiritual autem sanctum fal- 
laciter apparuisse oculis hominum, sed ambo ilia corpora vera corpora credi- 
mus. Sed omnipotent! Deo qui universam creaturam de nihilo fabr.icavit ?r 



JOHN THE BAPTIST, BAPTISM OF CHRIST, ETC. 103 

what union or relation it was to the Holy Ghost, we know 
neither by Scripture, nor by tradition. 

6. It will not be out of place to add here, some remarks on 
the character of St. John's baptism. St. Thomas, the angel 
of the schools teaches*) that John baptized principally for the 
end to accustom (assuefaceret) men by his baptism to the bap- 
tism of Christ, and to prepare them, also, internally, inducing 
them to penance. The external rite of John's baptism, was 
of divine ordinance or institution, as the Baptist says himself: 
" He who sent me to baptize with water," referring herein to 
God ; yet concerning its effects, it had no internal efficacy ; by 
itself it did not confer grace, but merely disposed to it, as an 
external rite, and symbol of purification and renovation. The 
council of Trentf) found it necessary to pronounce the anath- 
ema of the church against those who confounded this baptism 
with the baptism of Christ, defining : "If any one says that 
the baptism of John has had the same power, as the baptism of 
Christ, let him be anathema." Moreover, it must be remarked, 
that the rite of baptism was nothing new to the Jews, as the 
proselytes from the gentiles were always baptized, but not in 
all instances circumcised. With the baptism of John was con- 
nected a confession of sins, according to Matth. 3, 6, and Mark 
1, 5 : " And they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confess- 
ing their sins." The Greek terms used in the original, imply 
more than a general acknowledgment of their sins, as Grotius 
well observes, although not in minute detail. (Kenrick.) Such 
a confession of sins, was neither anything new to the Jews, as 
with some sacrifices of the Mosaic law, a confession of sin was 
connected, j) 



non erat difficile, verum corpus columbae sine aliarum coluinbarum rninister- 
io figurare. sicut ei non difficile erat verurn corpus in utero Mariae sine virili 
semine fabricare. Eodem modo Tertull. de carne Christi, c. 3. 

*) Summa Theol., 3 quaest. 38, a. 1, 2, 3. 

f ) Sess. 7, can. 1, de bapt. 

\) Lev. 4, 4. 15, 24. Num. 5, 7. Calmet refers to Maimonides ap. Light- 



104 THE OUTLINES OE THE LIFE OE CHRIST. 

7. Immediately after the baptism, Christ went into the desert. 
St. Luke writes, chap. 4, v. 1: "And Jesus being full of the 
Holy Ghost, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the 
Spirit into the desert." St. Mark, using a very strong express- 
ion, says, chap. 1, v. 12 : " And immediately the Spirit drove 
Him out into the desert." This desert was, according to tra- 
dition, the Quarantana, called in the Scripture, (Jos. 16, 1.) 
the desert of Jericho, between Jerusalem and Jericho.*) Yet 
Maldonat thinks, that, as the gospel makes no distinction be- 
tween the desert where John lived, and that into which Jesus 
went, it was one and the same. The history of the temptation, 
as described by St. Matthew and St. Luke, and shortly men- 
tioned by St. Mark, must be understood in the literal sense, all 
allegorical explanations, or as if it occurred not externally, but 
only internally in an ecstatical state (in spiritu)mustbe rejected, 
being a too great violence against the sacred text. That St. 
Luke places the third temptation in the place of the second, 
according to St. Matthew, and reversedly, cannot cause any 
difficulty. No doubt, it is terrible to think the prince of 
darkness in such a near contact with the incarnate God ; yet, 
St. Gregory justly remarks, it is not to be wondered at, that 
Christ permitted Himself to be led about by the devil, since 
He permitted Himself to be crucified by the members of the 
devil." 



7. — THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF CHRIST, 180, U. C. 

1. Towards the end of the first days which Christ spent in 
the desert, an embassy was sent by the Jews, to John the Bap- 
foot, Buxtorff Synag., Jud., c. 20 ? saying : " The Hebrews maintain, that 
the confession is by all means necessary for the remission of a crime." 

%) Schubert] in his description of a journey to Palestine, (III. 72,) re- 
marks of this desert : " The country between Jerusalem and Jericho, is like 
•a death-bed, on which the last spark of life wrestles with death, and is al- 
ways at the very point of being extinct, without succeeding to be so." 



FIRST YEAH OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF CHRIST. 105 

tist, who had come up the Jordan to Bethania, in order to ask 
him, whether he be the promised and eagerly desired Messiah, 
which he denied most emphatically, adding, at the same time, 
the most affecting testimony for Him Who hath stood in the 
midst of them ; One Whom they know not, Who shall come after 
him, Who was made before him, the latchet of Whose shoe he is 
not worthy to loose." John 1, 27. " The next day," that is, 
as it seems, the day after this embassy, when John saw Christ 
coming to him, likely from the desert, he saith : " Behold the 
Lamb of God, behold Him Who taketh away the sin of the 
world." Then, again, "the next day," John stood and two of 
his disciples, and beholding Jesus walking, he saith : "Behold 
the Lamb of God," whence the disciples followed Jesus, Who 
received them most graciously. One of these disciples was 
Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, the name of the other is 
passed over in silence, whence the interpreters infer that it was 
John, the author of the fourth gospel, who never names him- 
self in his gospel. They staid with Him one day ; on the eve- 
ning Andrew sought his brother Simon, and brought him, per- 
haps, the next day, to Jesus. Again on the following, that is, 
the third day, since Andrew and John had followed Jesus, He 
intended to return to Galilee. It seems that on His way to 
Galilee, He found Philip, and by Philip, then Nathanael, (Bar- 
tholomew,) who likewise followed Him. These first five disci- 
ples, did not yet receive a higher vocation ; they followed 
Jesus, and were in a similar relation to Him, as Andrew and 
John had been, before to John B. They went with Him to the 
wedding in Cana in Galilee, where their faith was increased by 
the first miracle of the Lord. After this, He went down to Ca- 
pernaum, He and His mother, and His Brethren, and His dis- 
ciples ; they remained there not many days ; as Bethsaida, the 
home of the disciples, was not far from Capernaum, they no 
doubt, went also thither. But the passover of the Jews being 
at hand, Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and the disciples follow- 
ed him. 



106 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

2. When he had come to Jerusalem, He expelled the first 
time the money-changers and sellers from the temple. This 
caused the first dispute with the Jews, recorded in the gospel. 
They manifested already on this first occasion a good deal of 
animosity against Him, yet many believed in His name at the 
passover, seeing the signs which He did. (John, 2, 23.) What 
signs these were, St. John does not detail, showing hereby dis 
tinctly what we said in another place, is a characteristic of 
him, that he mentions the events of the public life of Christ 
only shortly and sometimes in a summary manner, as it seems 
merely for the purpose of introduction, and to make more in- 
telligible the discourses of the Lord on His higher, really di- 
vine dignity and nature, and His proofs for it. At the first 
passover however, Christ seems to have been somewhat reserved 
in this regard. He indeed pointed the attention of the Jews 
to His resurrection, saying: "Destroy this temple and in three 
days I will raise it up again ;" but when the Jews did not un- 
derstand the sense of these words, He gave no further ex- 
planation of them. This seems also to be the meaning of St. 
John when he adds : -'But Jesus did not trust Himself to them, 
that is, even to those who believed in His name ; for He knew 
all men;" He knew that they were not disposed for receiving 
the manifestation of the glory hidden in Him. 

3. Anions: those who believed in the name of Jesus at this 
passover was also a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus; 
he is called a ruler of the Jews, that is either a president of a 
synagogue, or a member of the sanhedrim, a senator; also a 
master in Israel, and a scribe, presiding over a school. (Acts, 
5, 34, cf., 22, 3.) He is mentioned again by John, chap. 7, 50, 
pleading for Jesus in the council, and chap. 19, 39, taking an 
affecting part in the burial of Christ. This man came to Jesus 
by night, probably to avoid observation, as he knew that the 
other members of the sanhedrim were opposed to Christ, as 
they were, at least secretly, to John B. His desire was to re- 
ceive from Jesus a more definite declaration concerning His 



FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF CHRIST. 107 

mission. The answer of Christ is in perfect accordance to our 
foregoing remarks ; for He enters not at once on this question, 
but shows first, that in order to know Him and to become a 
partaker of His kingdom, a proper disposition, therefore an in- 
ternal change of man, a total regeneration is required, con- 
necting with this a clear exposition of the higher character of 
His baptism. And when Nicodemus answered "how can these 
things be done?" Christ speaking in a more definite manner 
of His coming from heaven and His great mission, announces 
the judgment of the unbelieving world, and the secret cause of 
this unbelief; "for their works," he says, "were evil ; for every 
one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the 
light, that his work may not be reproved." What Christ in this 
private conversion first spoke out, is more and more developed 
in the following discourses of the Lord, recorded by St. John. 
"After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the coun- 
try of Judea, and there He abode with them," until the last 
month of the year 780 U. C, when John B. was imprisoned. 

4. Returning through Samaria to Galilee, as we mentioned 
before, He came a second time to Cana, where he wrought an- 
other miracle, healing the son of the ruler.*) From St. 
Luke we infer, that Christ taught in all places whither He 
came, and did many signs, especially in Capernaum. " And 
Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and fame 
concerning Him went out through the whole country, and 
He taught in their synagogues and was extolled by all." (Luke, 
chap. 4, 14, 15.) And He came to Nazareth where He was 
brought up. (Luke, chap. 4, 16.) If St. Luke observed the 
chronological order of the events in any degree, we cannot 
doubt, that Christ did not return to Nazareth when He had 
come back to Galilee the first time after His baptism, but 7iotv, 
after about one year's time. This is confirmed by v. 23, where 
Christ says to the Nazarenes, speaking in the Synagogue to 



Patritius places this miracle to Capharnamn I, 395. 



108 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

them: "Doubtless you will say to me this similitude ; Physi- 
cian, heal thyself; as great things as we have heard clone in 
Capernaum, do also here in Thy country," At His first re- 
turn after His baptism He had done His first sign in Cana, 
then He went not for many days to Capernaum the first time. 
It is not said that He wrought any miracles there at that time, 
and even if that were granted, it is quite improbable that He 
returned then from Capernaum again to Nazareth, before He 
went up to Jerusalem for the passover. Yet there is a remark, 
given by St. John cli. 4, 43, 44, which caused some to believe, 
that the return of Jesus to Nazareth and the repulse He suff- 
ered from the Nazarenes on this occasion, must have taken 
place at His first return to Galilee, soon after the wedding at 
Cana. St. John, relating the second return through Samaria, 
concludes with these words : "Now after two days, He depart- 
ed thence (that is from Sichem in Samaria) and went into Gal- 
ilee. For Jesus Himself gave testimony that a prophet hath 
no honor in his own country" In these words John seems to 
refer to a passed event in the life of Christ, to the repulse suf- 
fered at Nazareth, on which occasion Christ used the very same 
words, saying to the Nazarenes : "Verily I say unto you, that 
no prophet is accepted in his own country." Luke 4. 24. 
The sense of the passage John, 4. 43, 44, would then be : "He 
went to Galilee, not to Nazareth ; for he had given testimony, 
that a prophet hath no honor, etc. Yet besides that this inter- 
pretation is contrary to the chronological order of St. Luke, St. 
John according to it would refer to an event, never mentioned 
in his gospel, as not even the name of Nazareth occurs in the 
whole gospel of St. John.||) And moreover, to effect logically 
the connection of the two verses in this sense, the Greek 
" kfiapTvpriae' He gave testimony, would have to be taken in the 
sense of a plusperfect, which may sometimes occur, but only 



cross 



Except that Jesus is called the Nazarene in the inscription over the 



FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF CHRIST. 109 

as an exception.*) Other writers, f) to make out a better sense, 
translated the conjunction "yap" "for" with "although," so 
that the sense would be: "He returned into Galilee, though 
He had testified etc,; understanding by "his own country" 
Galilee, not Nazareth. But they could not succeed in produc- 
ing a passage in which 7 & p is used in such a different sense. 
Therefore others say, the participle y & p gives the reason, why 
He remained so long in Samaria and went slowly to Galilee ;J) 
but everybody perceives, that also this is a strained interpreta- 
tion. Hence some say, St. John does not refer in these words 
to any preceding incident, but uses the sentence "a prophet 
has no honor in his own country," as a proverb, which Christ 
confirmed by word or action, when going from Samaria where 
He was retained by the fervent faith of the Samaritans, into 
Galilee, where He was not received but for the things which He 
had done in Jerusalem, that is, where He found not as much 
faith, though His own country, as in Samaria. By this inter- 
pretation we gain this much, that u hfiaprvpriaE " need not be taken 
in the sense of a plusperfect ; but the particle ">dp" will not 
well agree with the whole. Hence we find ourselves compelled 
to come back to the interpretation of Origen. He also takes 
the words "a prophet has no honor, etc," as a proverb; but 
moreover he understands by "his own country," referred to in 
v. 44, not Galilee, but Judea, so that the sense would be : 
Christ went from Samaria to Galilee, not back again to Judea, 
His own country, for he gave testimony, a prophet, etc. Judea, 
Origen says, is the "country" of the prophets; there He was 
born; and we may add, there He was baptized,', and had been 
preaching for about nine months. This interpretation is there- 



*) However this interpretation we find in Cyrillus Alex, among the an- 
cients, and has been suggested in our times by Olshaiisen. 
f ) Thus Alting, Schleussner, Kinnoel. 
X ) Gfroerer, Meyer. 



110 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

fore, adopted by Patritius,*) and we think, it is the most natu- 
ral, removing at the same time the objection against the chro- 
nological order of St. Luke, since according to it no longer a 
reasonoble doubt is left that Christ suffered His repulse at Naz- 
areth, on His second return to Galilee, about one year after 
His baptism. 

From this, that Christ said to the Nazarenes : "Doubtless ye 
will say to me this similitude : Physician, heal Thyself; as 
great things as we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here 
in Thy own country ;" some authors have concluded, that He 
went from Cana first to Capernaum, where He wrought these 
great things, and then to Nazareth ; but Patritius justly ob- 
serves, that by these great things the healing of the son of the 
ruler properly can be understood, because though Christ was at 
Cana, the miracle itself was effected in Capernaum, where the 
son of the ruler was lying sick. 



8. — FROM THE BEGIXXIXG OF THE SECOXD YEAR OF THE PUB- 
LIC LIFE OL CHRIST UNTIL EASTER 781, U. C. 

1. Leaving the city of Nazareth, Jesus came and dwelt in 
Capernaum on the sea-coast, that is, of the sea Genesareth, 
on the borders of Zabulon and of Nephthalim. (Matth. 4, 13.) 
From that time He began to preach and to say : "Repent, for 
the kingdom of heaven is at hand/' (Matth. 4, 17, Mark. 1, 14,) 
He taught them in the synagogue on the sabbath-days, and they 
were astonished at His doctrine, for His speech was with pow- 
er. St. Luke, 4. 31 — He cast out a devil in the synagogue, 
healed Simon's wife's mother, and many sick of divers diseas- 
es. The day after He went out into a desert place, and then 
He preached in the synagogues of Galilee. Returning again 



*) Patrit. "Cave putes dicta esse verba, quae sunt in Joan. 4. 44, de Naza- 
retho aut de Galilaea sed de Judaea, II. p, 395. 



PUBLIC LIFE OF CHRIST UNTIL EASTER, 781 U. C. Ill 

to the Lake of Genesareth (Luke ch. 5,) He called after the 
miraculous draught of fishes, Peter and Andrew, who had in the 
meantime returned to their trade, and also James and John, to 
catch henceforth men, or to be fishers of men,*) who leaving 
all things followed Him. Then follows the cure of the leper 
and of the man who had the palsy, which caused a dispute 
with the Pharisees. Near Capernaum He calls the tax-gath- 
erer, named Levi or Matthew, who immediately followed Him. 
Levi making a great feast in His house, invited the Lord with 
His disciples and a great company of tax-gatherers, whereby 
the Pharisees were much scandalized. (Luke 4, 31 ch. 6,). 

2. Thus far we have followedjwithout any difficulty the chrono- 
logical order, observed in the gospel of St. Luke ; but now we 
arrive at a passage, ch. 6, v. 1 11, which as we mentioned above, 
causes some embarrassment. The incidents which we read in 
these ten verses, took place undoubtedly after easter ; for the 
words: "it came to pass on the second-first sabbath," and 
then that the Pharisees blamed the apostles, because going 
through the corn-field, they plucked the ears and ate, rubbing 
them through their hands," show evidently, as we said, that 
easter was already passed, and the harvest-time at hand.f) 
But if we go on reading to the 9th ch. v. 13 of St. Luke, we 
meet the miracle of the multiplication of bread. This mira- 
cle is beyond any doubt identical with the multiplication of 
bread, described in the sixth chapter of St. John who re- 
marks expressly/that it occurred, easter being at hand. Hence, 
comparing Luke's gospel with St. Johns, there is none but this 
alternative left, either that St. Luke, describing inch. 6, 1 — 11, 
an event that happened immediately after easter, comprises in 
his narrative from ch. 6, until ch. 9, v. 13, one full year of the 



*) What we read Matth. 4, 17, and Mark 1. 11, seems to be identical with 
Luke ch. 5, 10. Matth. and Mark apparently omitted te circumstances of this 
vocation. 

f) The harvest commenced according to the law on the second day of eas- 
ter and ended with the first day of Pentecost. 



112 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

public life of Christ, or that the first eleven verses of the sixth 
chapter are a deviation from the chronological order, and must 
be placed after the multiplication of bread, that is after ch. 9. 
v. 17. All those authors who extend the public life of Christ 
only to two years and some months, are, of course, in favor of 
the second part of the alternative, that is, of a deviation from 
the chronological order. But the question is, have they suffi- 
cient reasons for their opinion ? If such a displacing of facts 
from the chronological order had to be supposed in the gospels 
of St. Matth. or St. Mark, it would be easily admitted, because 
it is the common opinion, that in those gospels, especially in the 
first, the chronological order is not observed ; but the contrary 
is entertained of St. Luke's gospel; the strict chronological 
order seems to be its characteristic peculiarity. However we 
think, that this must not be urged too much. Certainly, St. 

Luke says in ch. 1, v. 3, that it seemed good to him to 

write in order ; yet, on the other side, we know, that his gospel 
is also intended to give the oral preaching of St. Paul ; by this 
the Evangelist was obliged to give all the principle facts, con- 
tained in the oral preaching of the apostle, even when the chro- 
nological connection of them could not always be exactly as- 
certained. Hence D. D. Kenrick justly observes to ch. 1, v.. 
3 : This does not suppose a scrupulous regard to the order off 
time in recording each particular fact, but general attention tov 
the series of events. Hence we see this much, that also in 
this gospel a transposition of facts cannot be absolutely denied. 
But the question is, whether any positive particular reason 
can be given for such a transposition just in this passage... 
Reithmeier says, it was done in favor of the instructing tendency 
of this gospel.*) In the foregoing 5th chapter we read the first 
time that the Pharisees placed themselves from the very beginning 
in a hostile position against Christ; this appears more yet in the 
two incidents contained in ch. 6, v. 11, so that we read in v. 11 : 



) Reithmeier, p. 456. 



PUBLIC LIFE OF CHRIST UNTIL EASTER, 781 U. C. 113 

They were filled with madness; and they talked one with the 
other, what they might do to Jesus." To show, therefore, the 
full iniquity of this hatred, the Evangelist connected these 
events immediately with the foregoing. Moreover Christ con- 
demned, in the last verses of ch. 5, the narrow-minded views 
of the Pharisees, laying too much stress on external observa- 
tions, and thus making men unfit for His words, which are 
spirit and life." To this the two incidents following in ch. 6, 
1-11, are added, we may say, as illustrations. Besides this in- 
ternal connection of ch. 5 and ch. 6, v. 1-11, some see an in- 
dication of the supposed intercalation in ch. 6, v. 12, where 
we read: "And it came to pass in those days, that, etc." 
This phrase, they say, indicates that the following is not in 
immediate chronological connection with the foregoing,*) re- 
ferring to ch. 8, v. 1, and ch. 9, v. 18, only with this differ- 
ence, that in these two last passages the omission of events, 
related by the other Evangelists, breaks the strict connection 
of time, whilst in ch. 6, the interposition of events causes a 
similar interruption. Considering all this, we hope the reader 
will admit that the first eleven verses of ch. 6, for the sake of 
the internal connection with the last part of the 5th, are dis- 
placed out of the order of time, and must be inserted after the 
17th verse of ch. 9. 

3. After this short interruption, the order of time is again 
observed in the gospel of St. Luke. Hence, soon after the 
feast, made to Christ by Levi, " He went out on to the moun- 
tain to pray, and He passed the whole night in the prayer of 
God. And when the day was come, He called His disciples, and 
from them, He chose twelve, whom also He named Apostles; " 
and He made a sermon to them, (chap. 6, 12 — 49,) which is 
identical with the so-called sermon on the mount, given more 



*) Patritius, however, understands this phrase quite in the contrary sense 
translating the Greek h ravracc /jukpaiq by diebus ipsis, i. e. eisdem. — which 
certainly is not correct. 



114 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

extensively by St. Matth. chap. 5, 6, 7. In this discourse, the 
sublime moral principles of the Kingdom of God are laid down. 
Afterwards He came to Capharnaum, where He healed the 
servant of the Centurion. The day after, according to the 
Greek text, He went from Capharnaum to Nairn. This place is 
at a considerable distance from the first, in a straight direc- 
tion, about thirty miles, and probably further by the circuits to 
be made, as between the two places the country is a very 
labyrinth of mounts, valleys and brooks.*) It was probably 
about this time when Christ, according to St. Matthew, (ch. 10, 
v. 1, and ch. 11, v. 1,) sent out the first time, His apostles, or 
some of them, to preach, addressing to them another discourse, 
and giving them power over unclean spirits, and to heal all 
manner of diseases, f) Coming to Nairn He raised to life the 
son of a widow. About this time, whilst He went on towards 
Jerusalem, St. John, imprisoned in the castle of Machaerus, 
not far from the Dead sea, sent two of his disciples to Him, 
saying: "Art Thou He that cometh, or look we for another?" 
After this followed, probably, immediately the invitation by a 
Pharisee, called Simon, on which occasion Christ absolved the 
penitent woman. Where this event took place is not known ; 
for though the penitent woman may be Mary, the sister of Laz- 
arus, of whom we read John 12, 3, Matth. 26, 6, Mark 14, 3, 
that she anointed the feet of the Lord at a supper in the house 
of Simon the leper, yet it is without any probability that the 
event, of which St. Luke speaks, is identical with the other, a 
few days before the passion of the Lord ; neither can it be 
shown in any satisfactory manner, that Simon the Pharisee 
and Simon the leper are one and the same person. However, 
if the penitent woman was the sister of Lazarus, we could 



*) Schegg to St. Luke, p. 330. 

f) St. Luke and St. Mark put the sending of the apostles shortly before 
the multiplication of bread. Probably they were not sent all at once, but 
successively at different times, of which Matth. mentions the first, St. Luke 
and Mark the second. 



PUBLIC LIFE OF CHRIST UNTIL EASTER, 781 U. C. 115 

think of Bethania as the place also of this first anointment of 
the Lord. Certainly, this place would well agree with the 
connection of the facts in this period of the life of Christ ; 
for it is the common opinion that here must be inserted the 
coming of the Lord to Jerusalem for a festival day of the Jews 
according to St. John, ch. 5. We said above, that this 
was the festival of Purim or Lots, celebrated towards the end 
of February, four weeks before easter. At this festival Christ 
healed on the sabbath the man languishing thirty-eight years. 
Therefore did the Jews persecute Him, because He did these 
things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them: "My 
Father worketh until now, and I work." Hereupon, therefore 
the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only 
broke the sabbath, but also called God His own Father, mak- 
ing Himself equal to God." Nevertheless Christ insists on 
this equality, saying : "For what things soever He (the Father) 
doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner ;" and again ; 
" For as the Father raiseth up the dead and giveth life, so the 
Son gives life to whom He will." 

He refers them to the testimony of John B., but much more 
yet to the works which the Father hath given Him to perform, 
and to the Scriptures, for "if ye did believe Moses, ye would 
perhaps believe Me also; for he wrote of Me." We see from 
this that Christ comes back to the same subject, of which He 
spoke at His first being in Jerusalem, that is, of his divine dig- 
nity and nature, but this time much more openly and distinctly 
than at the foregoing easter. How long He remained in Jeru- 
salem and Judea on this occasion, St. John does not say ; we 
may, however, justly suppose that, as His hour was not come 
yet, and as the hatred of the Jews was exceedingly inflamed, 
He soon retired to Galilee again. The eighth chapter of 
Luke begins thus : "And it came to pass afterwards that He 
traveled through the cities and towns, preaching and announ- 
cing the Kingdom of God ; and the twelve were with Him, 
and certain women who had been healed from evil spirits and 



116 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

infirmities " The phrase "And it came to pass after- 
wards," no doubt, indicates that between the foregoing part of 
the narrative and the following, exists no exact connexion of 
time ; hence we insert here the coming of the Lord to Jerusa- 
lem, and consider chapter eight to be the chronological contin- 
uation of the foregoing narrative, after a short interruption. 
All which we read from ch. 8, y'. 1, until ch. 9, v. 17, of St. 
Luke, occurred after the return from the festival of Purim un- 
til easter, in about three weeks time. Hence we insert here, 
also, the parables of the seed, of the sower and the cockle.*) 
(Matth. 13. Mark 4.) Then He went over the sea Genesareth, 
on which occasion He stilled the tempest, and came into the 
country of the Grerasens, that is, in the country of the Deca- 
polis, east of the lake, where he cast out the legion. He re- 
turned immediately again on the west side of the lake, proba- 
bly to Capharnaum, where He raised to life the daughter of 
Jairus, and healed a woman of the issue of blood. Patritius 
inserts here also of Matth. ch. 9, v. 27, 34, where we read 
that Christ gave sight to two blind men, and healed a dumb 
man possessed by the devil. After this we read (Mark. 6, 1, 
Matth. 13, 54,) that Christ went once more, no doubt the last 
time, to Nazareth, where He was treated with contempt. Then 
follows the sending of the Apostles, or of some of them, pro- 
bably the second time. John B. was put to death not long 
before this time ; for when Herod, the tetrarch, heard of all 
things that were done by Jesus, he was at a loss, because it 
was said by some that John was risen from the dead, and by 
others, that Elias had appeared, and by others that one of the 
old prophets was risen again. "And Herod said: John I have 
beheaded; but who is this of whom I hear such things ?" And 
he sought to see Him. When Jesus had heard this (Matth. 14, 



*) St. Matth. and St. Mark add here also the two parables of the mus- 
tard seed and the leaven, but St. Luke places them between the festival pi 
the tabernacle and the dedication. 






FROM EASTER UNTIL THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 117 

v. 13,) and the apostles returned from their mission, He going 
up into a ship, passed with His disciples the sea of Genesareth, 
and went into a desert place, for two reasons, partly to avoid 
Herod, partly to give a little rest to the apostles ; for, as St. 
Mark remarks, there were many coming and going ; and they 
had not so much as time to eat. (Mark 6, 31.) But the mul- 
titude followed Him and His disciples also into the desert 
place, where He fed five thousands with five barley-loaves and 
two fishes. This great miracle is common to all the four Evan- 
gelists, and therefore a point of union between them. St. 
John alone marks the time, saying: "Now the passover, the 
festival day of the Jews, was at hand." The miracle made a 
great impression on the people, so that they would take Him 
by force and make Him king, whence He fled into the moun- 
tain Himself alone. His disciples went down to the sea, and 
they went in a ship over the sea to Capharnaum ; but when 
they had rowed about twenty-five or thirty furlongs, they saw 
Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh to the ship. The 
people followed Him the next day to Capharnaum, where He 
spoke to them on the bread of life. We may say, this sublime 
discourse, connected with the miracle, was probably the cause 
that St. John inserted the latter in His Gospel. 



9. — FROM EASTER UNTIL THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES, THAT 
IS, FROM THE END OF MARCH UNTIL OCTOBER OF THE 
YEAR 781, U. C. 

1. After the discourse on the bread of lite St. John imme- 
diately adds : "After these things Jesus went about in Galilee; 
for He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought 
to kill Him." In these words, no doubt, the reason is given, 
why Jesus went not up to Jerusalem for the passover. In the 
week after easter we have to place the two incidents, contained 
in the disputed verses of St. Luke ch. 6, 1 — 11. The Phari- 



118 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

sees blamed the disciples, that, going through the corn-fields, 
they plucked the ears and ate, rubbing them through their 
hands on a sabbath day; and then again when Jesus cured a 
man whose right hand was withered, they were filled with mad- 
ness. But here we lose our guide, St. Luke, for about four 
months. After ch. 9, v. 17, there is an unmistakable chasm in 
his narrative. Having related the multiplication of bread, he 
continues : "And it came to pass as He was praying in priv- 
ate, His disciples also were with Him ; and He asked them 
saying : "Who do the people say that I am, etc;" after which 
follows then the transfiguration. This did not occur, accord- 
ing to the other two Evangelists and the tradition, before the 
month of August; hence St. Luke passed all the events, lying 
between, in silence.*) St. Matthew, (ch. 14, and St. Mark ch. 
6, 56,) though they relate the walking of the Lord upon the sea 
after the multiplication of bread, do not mention His discourse 
on the bread of life, but they relate, that when He was gone 
out of the ship, immediately they knew Him ; and running 
through that whole country, they began to carry about in beds 
those that were sick where they heard He was. And whither- 
soever He entered, into towns, or villages, or cities, they laid 
the sick in the streets and besought Him that they might touch 
but the tuft of His garment ; and as many as touched Him 
were cured." From these summary remarks we see that also 
these two Evangelists pass over many events of this part of the 
life of Christ without mentioning them in detail ; yet we 
learn from them at least some of these events, and more- 
over the whereabouts of the Lord during these months. The 
first that we read in the following chapter of the two Evange- 
li sts, is a sharp rebuke of the Pharisees and of some of the scribes 
, who, coming from Jerusalem assembled unto Him, (St. Mark 



*) What caused St. Luke to do so, we do not know ; but we think, this is 
another sign that St. Luke did not know the gospels of St. Matthew and' 
St. Mark. 






FROM EASTER UNTIL THE EEAST OF TABERNACLES. 119 

ch. 7, v. 1,) because they, seeing His disciples eat bread with 
unwashed hands, they found fault. This seems to have hap- 
pened at Capernaum, or certainly somewhere about the sea of 
Genesareth. But then, rising from thence, He went into the 
borders of Sidon and Tyre, where He healed the daughter of the 
Syria-phoenician woman. And again going out of the bor- 
ders Of Tyre, He came by Sidon to the sea of Galilee, through 
the midst of the coast of Decapolis, (St. Mark, ch. 7, v. 31,) 
that is, going back from Sidon, He crossed the Jordan north of 
the sea of Genesareth, and then went on along the eastern 
shore of the lake through the Decapolis. There going up the 
mountain, says St. Matth., He sat there. And there came to 
Him great multitudes, having with them the dumb, and the 
blind, the lame, the crippled and many others ; and they cast 
them down at His feet, and He healed them," so that the mul- 
titudes marvelled, seeing the dumb speak, the lame walk, the 
blind see, and they glorified the God of Israel." St. Mark de- 
scribes to us one of these miraculous cures, namely of one dumb 
and deaf, whom He cured, putting His fingers into his ears, and 
touching his tongue, saying: "Ephpheta," which is, "Be thou 
opened."*) At the same place He fed again miraculously with 
seven loaves, a great multitude, numbering four thousand men, 
besides children and women. Having dismissed the multitude, 
He went up into a boat with His disciples, and came into the 
country of Dalmanutha, as St. Mark says, or into the coasts of 
Magedan (Magdala) according to St. Matthew. Calmet says, 
Dalmanutha was a city west of the sea of Tiberias, in the dis- 
trict of Magdala. Lightfoot thinks, Magdala was situated on 
the south-east side of the lake, near the hot baths of Tiberias, 
one mile distant from the banks of the Jordan. Gratz, howev- 
er, places (with Calmet,) Magedan on the west side of the lake 
of Genesareth, not very far from Capernaum, perhaps where 



*) As this miracle is scarcely identical with Matth. 9, 34, we have proba- 
bly here an event, only mentioned by St. Mark. 



120 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

now El Medschel is situated, between Capernaum and Tiber- 
ias. Here He met again the Pharisees, and as St. Matth. adds, 
with them also some of the Saducees, two opposite parties com- 
bining against the Divine Teacher. "They began to question 
Him, asking Him a sign from heaven, tempting Him." Hav- 
ing rebuked them, He went up again into the ship, and passed 
te tho other side of the water, that is, to the eastern or Arth- 
eastern shore. He came to Bethsaida, that is, Bethsaida Jul- 
ias, on the north-eastern shore of the lake, where He gave 
sight to a blind man. This miracle is only related by St. 
Mark, ch. 8, v. 22. From thence Jesus went out and His dis- 
ciples into the towns of Cesarea Philippi, in the northern ex- 
tremity of Palestine, towards the sources of the Jordan.*) It 
was on the way thither, when He asked His disciples who do 
men say that I am ; which occasioned Peters renowned profess- 
ion of faith. Surprising, no doubt, is the remark, added by 
the three Evangelists immediately after this open profession by 
St. Peter, namely that the Lord charged them strictly, that 
they should not tell any man of Him. St. Luke who, as we 
said above, here takes up again his interrupted narrative, con- 
nects with the foregoing remark, the words of Jesus, saying : 
"The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by 
the ancients and chief-priests and scribes and be put to death, 
and the third day rise again" so that these words seem to con- 
tain the reason why He commanded them strictly to tell this, that 
Peter professed before all, to no man. The foretelling of His 
passion was so unexpected to the disciples and hard to hear 
that Peter, taking Him aside, began to rebuke Him, that is, to 
remonstrate with Him, doubtless affectionately and reverently ; 
but He threatened Peter, saying : "Go after me Satan, be- 
cause thou dost not relish the things that are of God, but that 



*) It was called, :l of Philip" from the tetrarch of this name, who em- 
bellished it, and dedicated it to Cesar Augustus. It was called Paneas in 
the time of St. Jerom. — Kenrick. 



FROM EASTER UNTIL THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 121 

are of man." And calling the multitude together with His 
disciples, He said unto them : "If any man will follow after 
me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." 
Here, we may say, the preaching of the cross takes its begin- 
ning ; "Vexilla Regis prodeunt ; Fulget crucis mysterium." 

2. Six days according to St. Matthew and St. Mark,*) and 
about eight days according to St. Luke after these words, 
Jesus took with Him Peter, and James, and John and went up 
on the mountain to pray. And whilst He prayed, He was 
transfigured before them. His countenance was altered, and 
His raiment became white and glittering. 

What mountain was this ? Maldonat answers, neither the 
Evangelists say this, nor any sufficiently ancient and grave au- 
thor ; yet it was long ago the opinion that it was mount Tabor. 
But it is an undoubted historical fact, that the top of Tabor 
was fortified for military purposes from the time of Antiochus 
the Great (218 before Christ,) down to the time of Josephus, 
hence it was not a proper place for retirement and prayer, and 
much less for the transfiguration. Eusebius describes the 
mount Tabor, but says nothing of the transfiguration. Be- 
fore the time of St. Jerom and Cyril such a tradition was not 
known. Therefore we have to think of another mountain, 
most probably of one of the heights of mount Hermon, 
near to Cesarea ; the epithet "a high mountain" used by St. 
Matthew, agrees also better with Hermon, than with Tabor. f) 
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged 
them, saying : Tell the vision to no man, till the son of man 
be risen from the dead. The next day, as they came down 
from the mountain, a great crowd met them. Among the 
crowd was a man whose only begotten son was seized by a ma- 



*) They did not include the day on which the words were spoken and the 
day on which the transfiguration took place. 

f) Schegg. Matth. p. 392. St. Peter calls the mount of the transfiguration 
the "Holy mountain" which can be said of Hermon as well as of Tabor, cf. 
Psalm. 88. 13. 



122 THE OUTLINES OP THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

lignant spirit ; and Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and cured 
the boy, and restored him to his father. But while all won- 
dered at the things He did, He said, to His disciples : "Lay- 
up in your hearts these words, for it shall come to pass that 
the son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men, (St. 
Luke, 9, 44,) and they will kill Him, and after He is killed, 
He will rise again the third day." (Mark 9. 30). This He 
said according to St. Mark, whilst He passed from Cesarea- 
Philippi through Galilee. And they came to Capernaum. 
On the way thither a thought came to the disciples which of 
them was greater, wherefore Christ, when He was come 
to Capernaum, took a child and set him by Him, and said 
to them : He that is the lesser among you all, he is the 
greater. And John answering said : Master, we saw a cer- 
tain man casting out devils in Thy name, and we forbade him, 
because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said : Forbid 
not, for he that is not against you, is for you. (St. Luke, ch. 9. 
v. 49, 50.). Patritius inserts here also the words of Christ on 
scandal, on the joy in heaven on the conversion of the sinner, 
on the obstinate sinner to be denounced to the church, on the 
efficacy of prayer in common, and the parable of the indebted 
servant (Mark ch. 9, Matth. ch. 18). Now Jesus set out on 
His journey to Jerusalem for the festival of tabernacles. St. 
Luke ch. 9, v. 51, says : "And it came to pass, when the days 
of His being taken up were completed, that He set His face 
steadfastly to go to Jerusalem." In ch. 7, v. 2, of St. John 
we read : "Now the Jewish feast of tabernacles was at hand ;" 
and in v. 10: "But after His brethren had gone up, then He 
also went up to the festival, not openly, but as in secret. And 
He sent messengers before His face ; and going they entered 
into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him ; and they 
received Him not, because His face was of one going to Jeru- 
salem. And they went into another town." It seems impos- 
sible to mark out exactly in the series of St. Luke's narrative 
the point, where the arrival of the Lord in Jerusalem must be 



FROM THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES TO DEDICATION. 123 

intercalated. There are three different places where it could 
be conveniently done. First before ch. 10, v. 1, where we 
read : "And after these things the Lord appointed also seven- 
ty-two others, and sent them two by two before His face into 
every city and place whither He Himself was to come. Sec- 
ondly, before v. 17, of the same chapter, since there is said, 
that the seventy-two returned again, so that some space of 
time must have been passed over in silence between v. 17, and 
the foregoing verses, which contain the words of Christ to the 
seventy-two, when He sent them. Thirdly, after the last verse 
of this ch., for in the last five verses of the same chapter Christ's 
visit to the house of Martha, no doubt at Bethania, 2 miles dis- 
tant from Jerusalem, is mentioned. We would be inclined to 
prefer the second, for the reason already given, so that a short 
time before the feast of the tabernacles the seventy-two were 
sent ; then follows what He did at the festival, described by 
St. John; and after the festival, the seventy-two returned 
with joy to the Lord, probably before He had left Judea 
again. 



10. — FROM THE FEAST OF THE TABERNACLES, UNTIL THE FEAST 
OF THE DEDICATION (FROM OCT. UNTIL THE END OF DE- 
CEMBER). 

1. It was about the middle of the festival of tabernacles,*) 
the 19th of the month Tischri (Octob.) 781, U. C, when Je- 
sus arriving at Jerusalem went up to the temple and taught. 
The Jews, that is, probably the Pharisees, and members of 
the Sanhedrim, had sought Him before at the beginning of 
the festival. Among the multitude there was much murmuring 



*) The feast lasted seven days, Lev. 23, 36. The eighth day was also cel- 
ebrated, although not in tents, wherefore the feast was counted as of eight 
days. 



124 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

concerning Him ; for some said : He is a good man ; and others 
said : No, He seduceth the people. The members of the San- 
hedrim show contempt against His doctrine, as of one, who 
possessed no regular learning. Christ answers them, that His 
doctrine is from a higher source, than human learning ; if they 
would be intent on doing the will of God, they would know 
that His doctrine is of God ; but, though they have the law of 
Moses, they keep it not. Therefore they oppose Him, and seek 
to kill Him under the vain pretence that, by healing the infirm man 
of 38 years on the foregoing feast of the Purim, He had violated 
the Sabbath. Many of the people believed in Him, and said: When 
the Christ cometh, will He do more miracles than this man 
doeth ? The Pharisees heard the people murmuring these 
things concerning Him and "the rulers and Pharisees sent 
officers to apprehend Him. On the last great day of the festivity 
arose a dissension among the people because of Him. And 
some of them wished to apprehend Him, but no man laid hands 
upon Him. The officers therefore came to the chief priests and the 
Pharisees, and they said unto them: Why have ye not brought 
Him? The officers answered : Never did man speak like this man. 
The Pharisees therefore answered them: Are ye also seduced? 
Hath any one of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in Him ? 
But this multitude that knoweth not the law, are accursed. 
Nicodemus, he that came to Him by night, who was one of them, 
said to them : Doth our law condemn any man, unless it first 
hear him and know what he doeth ? They answered and said 
to him : Art thou also a Galilean ? Search the Scriptures 
and see that out of Galilee a prophet riseth not. And every 
man returned to his own house," that is, the meeting was bro- 
ken up, without any measure being adopted. And Jesus 
went to Mount Olivet. And early in the morning He 
came again into the temple, and all the people came 
to Him, and sitting down He taught them. He was 
interrupted by the scribes and Pharisees, bringing to Him a 
woman taken in adultery. Having dismissed her in the known 



FROM THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES TO DEDICATION. 125 

most merciful manner, He continued to speak to the people 
and to argue with the Pharisees, until at last He said to them : 
Verily, Verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was made, I 
am. They took up stones therefore, to cast at Him But Je- 
sus hid Himself, and went out of the temple. Nevertheless 
Jesus gave sight to the man who was born blind immediately 
after the foregoing danger. For thus St. John continues : 
" And Jesus passing by, saw a man who was blind from his 
birth." The Jews, it seems, became somewhat perplexed by 
the evidence of this miracle. The man born blind was cast out 
of the Synagogue ; and when the same shortly after falling 
down, adored Jesus as the son of God, Jesus said : "For judg- 
ment I am come into the world, that they who see not, may see 
and they who see, may become blind." Herewith is intimate- 
ly connected the following similitude of the good shepherd and 
the hireling, intended to show that the rulers of Israel, the 
scribes and Pharisees, because they are blind, are not any lon- 
ger qualified to be the teachers and leaders of the people. On 
account of these words of Jesus a new dissension rose among 
the Jews, that is, among the rulers and Pharisees themselves ; 
and many of them said : "He hath a devil and is mad ; why 
harken you to him ?" Others said : "These are not the words 
of one that hath a devil; can a devil open the eyes of the 
blind?" Here St. John adds immediately what occurred on 
the next festival of the dedication of the temple, about two 
months later. From St. Luke we know, that Jesus left Jerusa- 
lem and returned in the meantime to Galilee;*) for here, as 
we said, we have to insert 1) the return of the seventy-two 
2) the parable of the good Samaritan, and 8) the visit of the 
Lord to the house of Martha and Mary at Bethania. (St. Luke 
ch. 10, v. 17 — 42.) What we read in the v. 1, of ch. 11, oc- 
curred probably when Jesus was again in Galilee. " And it 

■ : ") Patritius however thinks that Jesus did not return to Galilee, but re- 
mained in the country of Judea during these two months. II. 413. III. Dis- 
sert. 48, n. 22. 



126 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

came to pass, that as He was in a certain place praying, when 
He ceased, one of His disciples said to Him : Lord teach us 
to pray, as John also taught his disciples." But the Pharisees 
and the scribes, as it seems, followed Him now wheresoever 
He went. Having taught His disciples how to pray, He was 
casting out a devil, and the same was dumb ; the multitudes 
wondered, but the Pharisees said : " By the prince of the 
devils He casteth out devils." (Matth. 9, 32.) Having rejected 
this infamous calumny, a certain Pharisee asked Him to dine 
with him. On this occasion he pronounced woes against the 
Pharisees and lawyers for their hypocricy, so that they began 
vehemently to urge Him, and to oppress His mouth about 
many things, lying in wait for Him and seeking to catch some- 
thing from His mouth, that they might accuse Him. 
(Luke ch. 11.) 

3. In ch. 12, we read that when a great multitude crowded 
about Him, He warns His disciples against the leaven of the 
Pharisees, which is hypocrisy, then against the fear of the 
world, and covetousness ; and admonishes all to watch. From 
v. 47, He speaks of His mission, similar as when in Jerusalem, 
and the blindness of those who do not know Him. He says: 
" I am come to cast fire upon earth ; and what do I wish but 

that it be kindled ? Do ye think that I came to give peace 

on earth ? No, I tell you, but division Hypocrits, ye know 

how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth ; but 
how is it that ye do not discern this time?" And when some 
told im of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with 

their sacrifices, He answering said I say to you, but unless 

ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish, adding at the same time 
the parable of the barren fig-tree. 

Teaching in a synagogue on the sabbath, He cured an in- 
firm woman, bowed together so that she could not look up- 
wards at all. The ruler of the synagogue being angry at this, 
Jesus said : Ye hypocrites, doth not each of you on the sab- 
bath-day loose his ox, or his ass from the stall, and lead to wa- 



FROM THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES TO DEDICATION. 127 

ter ? And this daughter of Abraham whom Satan hath bound, 
lo ! these eighteen years, ought she not to be loosed from this 
bond on the sabbath-day? When the people rejoiced for all 
the glorious things, that were done by Him, He added the two 
parables of the mustard seed and of the leaven. Here then 
we place, following Patritius, His journey to the feast of the 
dedication. St. Luke says : And He went through the cities 
and towns, teaching and making His journey to Jerusalem." 
ch. 13, v. 22. But we cannot agree with Patritius, when he 
concludes from v. 31, and 35, that all which follows immedi- 
ately after v. 22., must be placed in the time of the last jour- 
ney of the Lord to Jerusalem. Patritius says : From v. 31, 
we see, that Jesus was in the territory of Herod, that is, Gali- 
lee ; for some of the Pharisees came, saying: Depart and get 
Thee hence, for Herod hath a mind to put Thee to death. From 
v. 35, it follows, that this was the last presence in Galilee be- 
fore His solemn entry into Jerusalem on the first day of the 
passion-week, for thus we read: " Behold your house shall 
be left desolate to you. And I say to you, that ye shall not 
see Me till the time come, when ye shall say : Blessed is He 
that cometh in the name of the Lord." The conclusion, derived 
from v. 31, is, no doubt, correct; but the conclusion, inferred 
from v. 35, we cannot admit ; for even supposing, that the 
w T ords: You shall not see me etc., must be understood of the 
solemn entry of Christ into Jerusalem, they would not exclude 
the coming of Christ in the mean time to Jerusalem; for He 
does not say, that the people of Jerusalem will not see Him 
until this day, but the people of Galilee, to whom He spoke 
these words. But moreover the passage referred to, can scarce- 
ly be understood of the solemn entry into Jerusalem. The 
same words which we read here, we find again in Matth. 23, v. 
39, after Christ had already solemnly entered Jerusalem. To 
say, that Matth. placed these words out of the order of time, is 
impossible, considering the connection of the passage. Christ 
repeated the same words which we read here in St. Luke, on 



128 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

another occasion, stated by St. Matthew. Therefore Maldo- 
nat*) of the ancient, and Schegg of the modern interpreters 
assert, that the passage, referred to, must be understood of the 
second coming of the Lord, or the conversion of the Jews at 
the end of the world. Hence we cannot consent to the con- 
clusion, drawn by Patritius from v. 35. Besides this, the words 
of St. Luke "He went through cities and towns teaching, and 
making His journey to Jerusalem," seem to import, that Christ 
at that time set out for Jerusalem, but moving slowly, because 
teaching in cities and towns through which He passed. There- 
fore we think it even better to connect all what we read from 
ch. 13, 22, until ch. 17, v. 11, with this journey to the feast of 
the dedication. At least the narrative of St. Luke seems to 
offer no more convenient place than this for the intercalation 
of all what Christ did at the festival of the dedication and 
immediately after it. 

4. According to the foregoing remarks, it was on His way 
to Jerusalem, that He answered the question, whether there 
are few that are saved, and said to the Pharisees, threatening 
Him with the wicked intention of Herod : " Go and tell that 
fox: Behold I cast out devils and work cures to-day and to- 
morrow ; and the third day I am consumated. And then, 
coming into the house of one of the chiefs of the Pharisees on 
the sabbath-day to eat bread, He healed the dropsical man, 
adding at the same time, the parable of the supper. After 
this, great multitudes following Him, He turned and told them 
that those who want to follow Him must renounce all things. 
In the 15th ch. we read the affecting parables of the lost sheep 
and of the prodigal son ; and in ch. 16, those of the unjust 
steward, and of the rich man and Lazarus. In ch. 17, He speaks 
to His disciples of the grievious sin of scandal ; of forgiving 
the brother, even if he sin against thee seven times in a day, and 



*) Maldonatus : l ' Secundum Christi adventum significari omnes consent- 
iunt auctores ; quomodo autem Judaei in secundo adventu dicturi sint de 
Christo :" ' Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini, de eo dissentiunt. 



FROM THE DEDICATION UNTIL PASSION-WEEK. 129 

seven times in a day turn to thee, saying : I repent ; of the 
efficacy of faith and of humility before God, so that ye, when 
ye shall have done all these things that have been commanded, 
you say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that 
which we were bound to do. Here, at last, follows the remark, 
v. 11; " And it came to pass, as He was going to Jerusalem, 
He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." These 
words, no doubt, refer to His last journey to Jerusalem, when 
after the feast of the dedication and the raising to life of 
Lazarus, He proceeded from Ephrem, where He had hid Him- 
self for a while, through Samaria to Galilee, and thence went 
up to the last passover. We have, therefore, here again a 
short interruption of the narrative of St. Luke. All that oc- 
curred at the festival and immediately after until the time 
when Christ entered on his last journey, is omitted and must 
be here inserted from the Gospel of St. John. 



11. FROM THE FESTIVAL OF THE DEDICATION UNTIL THE PAS- 
SION WEEK, OR FROM THE END OF DECEMBER UNTIL THE 
TENTH OF NISAN (20TH OF MARCH.) 

1. "And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem, and 
it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's 
porch." This festival fell on the twenty-fifth of the Hebrew 
month Caslev, corresponding to the loth December : it was a 
festival of eight days. The wintry season is mentioned as the 
reason why our Lord was walking in the porch, under shelter. 
(Kenrick.) The porch of Solomon was on the east side of the 
temple, and is therefore called by Josephus the eastern porch. 
It was the only part left uninjured when the Babylonians des- 
troyed the temple of Solomon. In this portico Christ walked on a 
day of the said festival, when the Jews, that is, the members of the 
Sanhedrim, came around Him and said to Him : How long dost 
9 



130 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

Thou keep our mind in suspense ? If Thou be the Christ, (the 
Messiah,) tell us plainly. Jesus answers not directly to their 
question ; for they knew it well, that He manifested Himself as 
the Messiah, as they had already agreed among themselves at 
the foregoing festival, that if any man should confess Him to be 
Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Hence 
He told them what the reason is that they believed not the tes- 
timony of His works. "But ye do not believe, because ye are 
not of My sheep." My sheep hear My voice:*) and I know 
them, and they follow Me, and no man shall tear them from 
My hands — and why ? "That which My Father has given to 
Me, that is, the dignity, the power, or, as St. Augustin ex- 
plains, the communication of the divine nature, is greater than 
all." The power of the Father is Mine ; and no one can snatch 
them out of the hand of My Father. I and the Father are 
one," that is, according to the Greek, one thing, of the same 
nature, substance, essence. By these words Jesus declared 
Himself not only to be the Messiah, but to be the Messiah of 
divine nature. The Jews understood well the sense of these 
words; they took up stones to stone Him. And when Jesus 
said : "Many good works I have showed you from My Father : 
For which of those works do ye stone Me ? They answered Him : 
For a good work, we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy : and 
because that being a man, Thou makest Thyself God." Jesus 
shows them in His answer, first, that to call Himself the Son 
of God does not imply a blasphemy, for Scripture calls the 
judges even, gods, because God clothed them with authority, (Ps. 
81, 6.) And secondly, they must believe Him on account of His 



*) Christ refers the Jews to the parable of the good shepherd, by which 
He concluded His words to them on the foregoing festival of the tabernacles: 
we must therefore suppose, that the Jews who asked Him on this occasion, 
were, at least partly, the very same to whom He had spoken the said para- 
ble. In a similar manner He referred them above at the festival of the taber- 
nacles, to a miracle which He had wrought on the preceding festival of the 
Purim. 



FROM THE DEDICATION UNTIL PASSION-WEEK. 131 

works, even if He calls Himself the Son of God by nature. 
"If I do not the works of My Father, believe me not. But if I 
do, though ye will not believe Me, believe the works : that ye 
may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the 
Father." The Jews understood again very well these words 
of our Lord. But being obstinate in their unbelief, though 
they could not bring any objection to the close argument, they 
would not believe. Therefore they sought to take Him, and 
He went out of their hands. And He went again beyond the 
Jordan, to that place where John was baptizing first, and there 
He abode. 

2. How long Jesus remained in the country beyond the Jor- 
dan, is not distinctly said ; but from chap. 11, v. 8, we may 
safely conclude with Patritius, that it was not very long ; for 
when the sisters, Martha and Mary, sent to Him, saying : "Lord, 
behold, he whom Thou lovest is sick," He still remained in the 
same place two days : Then after that, He said to His disci- 
ples, let us go into Judea again. The disciples say to Him: 
Rabbi, the Jews but noiv sought to stone Thee, and goest Thou 
thither again ? "When Jesus came to Bethania, there He was 
told that Lazarus had been already four days in the grave. 
Many of the Jews were come to Martha and Mary to comfort 
them, concerning their brother. They followed Mary to the 
grave ; in their presence the stone was moved away from the 
grave, and Jesus cried with a loud voice : Lazarus, come forth. 
"And presently he that had been dead came forth, bound 
feet and hands with winding bands, and his face was bound 
about with a napkin. Jesus said to them, loose him and let 
him go." Many of the Jews believed in Jesus, seeing this great 
miracle. But some of them went to the Pharisees, and told 
them the things that Jesus had done. This caused great alarm 
among them. A council was called, and they said : what are 
we doing, for this man doeth many miracles ? If we let Him 
alone so, all will believe in Him; and the Romans will come, 
and take away our place and nation. But one of them named 



132 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

Caiphas, being high-priest for that year, said to them: "Ye know 
nothing, neither do ye consider that it is expedient for you,, 
that one man should die for the people, and that the whole na- 
tion perish not. And this he spoke not of himself; hut being 
the high-priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus should 
die for the nation. And not only for the nation, adds the 
Evangelist according to St. Augustin, but to gather together 
in one the children of God, that were dispersed." Wherefore 
Jesus walked no more openly among the Jews, but He went 
into a country near the desert, to a city that is called Ephrem, 
and there He abode with His disciples. According to Euse- 
bius, this place was situated only eight miles north of Jerusa- 
lem, near the desert of Jericho, or the Quarantana. St. Jer- 
om places it twenty miles north of Jerusalem. Josephus in his 
history of the Jewish war under Vespasian, mentions it, and 
says that it was taken by this Roman leader, when approaching 
Jerusalem with his army, therefore the statement of Eusebius 
seems to be more correct. 

3. Patritius thinks that the terms, used by St. John*) to 
designate the abode of the Lord in Ephrem, indicate a longer 
delay in that place. But that Christ returned from his retreat 
to Galilee before He went up the last time to Jerusalem, is, 
according to the same author, out of question. f) This return 
is expressed by St. Luke, ch. 17, v. 11, saying; "And it came 
to pass, as He was going to Jerusalem, He passed through the 
midst of Samaria and Galilee." The sense of this passage in 
this connection, we think, is obvious. Setting out from Eph- 
rem with the intention to appear again publicly in Jerusalem, 
He returned through Samaria the last time to Galilee. This 
is confirmed by an incident not noticed by Patritius. St* 
Matthew relates in ch. 17, v. 23 : "And when they were come 
to Capernaum, they that received the double drachm, (that is, 



*) In Greek tc dieTpi@ev 7 [ — in Latin, i '-Morabahir. v 

f) Attarnen in Galilaeam Christum remeasse, priusquam ultimo iret Hiero- 



FROM THE DEDICATION UNTIL PASSION-WEEK. 133 

the tax for the temple), J) came to Peter and said to him : 
Doth not your master pay the double drachm? " In this we 
have a chronological elate ; this tax was annually published at 
the first of Adar, (February) ; the fifteenth of the same month 
the money changers put up everywhere their tables to ex- 
change the Hebrew coin, in which the tax was to be paid, for 
Greek or Roman coins. The last five days of the month all 
those that had not paid, were distrained according to law. 
At the first of Nisan the whole collection of this tax was to 
be completed. §) Hence we know that our Lord was in Caper- 
naum between the 15th and 24th of Adar, that is, toward the 
end of February, 782, U. C. We may therefore, conjecture, 
that He left Ephrem in the earlier part of February and came, 
teaching on the way, perhaps after the middle of the month, 
to Capernaum, where He probably remained a short while. On 
His way to Galilee, He entered into a certain town, where 
ten lepers, who met him, were healed. The Pharisees put the 
question to him : " When doth the kingdom of God, (that is 
by the Messiah) come ? " He answered them and said : " The 
kingdom of God cometh not with observation;" that is with 
pomp and display. Then He spoke to His disciples on the 
manner of His second coming, and the necessity of assiduous 
prayers, adding to it at the same time the parable of the Phar- 
isee and the tax-gatherer. Hereabout, we think, must be 
inserted His last abode in Capernaum ; for St. Matthew begins 
ch. 19, with this remark : " And it came to pass that when 
Jesus had ended these words, He departed from Galilee and 
came into the territory of Judea, beyond the Jordan." The 
same we read in St. Mark, ch. 10, v. 1. Then having men- 



solymam, certo constat, quum iter hoc (ultimum) a Galilaea inceptum fuisse 
Lucas aperte dicat — Patrit. 

t) Nehem. 10, 23: Chronic. 24, 6, 

g) Schegg to Matth. 17, v. 24, Haneberg. Calmet— -Docent Rabbini exigendi 
hujus census initium fuisse diem 15 vel 25, mensis Adar. atque unius men- 
sis spatium hujusmodi solutioni destinatum. 



134 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

tioned the d claration of the Lord that marriage is indissolu- 
ble, both of them coincide with St. Luke in the continuation of 
his narrative, relating, that He blessed the children brought to 
Him, showed the way of perfection to the young man, and as 
he would not follow him because he was rich, spoke to the dis- 
ciples of the danger of riches, on which occasion Peter said : 
"Behold, we have left all things and followed thee." To this 
we may add from St. Matth. ch. 20, v. 1-17, the parable of the 
laborers in the vineyard. From the given connection we 
conclude that Jesus went from Capernaum beyond the Jordan, 
and came through Perea to the borders of Judea. Having 
arrived there, He took the road to Jerusalem, (Mark 10, 32.) 
He went before the disciples and they were astonished; and 
following they were afraid. And taking again the twelve, He 
began to tell them the things that should befall Him. u Be- 
hold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be be- 
trayed to the chief-priests and scribes and ancients, and they 
will condemn Him to death, and deliver Him to the Gentiles, 
and they will mock Him, and spit on Him and scourge Him, 
and put Him to death,*) and on the third day He will rise 
again." The disciples could not comprehend these words. 
St. Matth. and St. Mark mention here the ambition of the 
sons of Zebedee, their mother asking of the Lord, that her 
two sons may sit, the one on His right hand and the other on 
the left, in His kingdom. After this the three Evangelists 
mention, that Jesus came to Jericho, where He gave the sight 
to three blind men, to one when entering, and to two others, 
coming out of Jericho. St. Luke alone recorded the affecting 
conversion of Zacchaeus, who received the Lord with joy in 
his house. On this occasion, He added and spoke the parable 
of the pounds, because He was nigh to Jerusalem, and because 
they thought that the Kingdom of God would be manifested 



*) St. Matth. 20, 19. u And they will deliver Him to the Gentiles to be 
mocked and scourged and crucified.^ 



FROM THE DEDICATION UNTIL PASSION-WEEK. 135 

immediately, that is, in order to correct this view and prepare 
them for delay. According to the synoptical Gospels we would 
think, that Jesus went directly from Jericho to Jerusalem. 
But St. John supplies here, that Jesus, six days before the 
passover, came to Bethania, where they made Him a supper. 
This supper was prepared*) in the house of Simon the leper. 
(Matth. 26, 6. Mark 14, 3.) It was the day before the sab- 
bath, that is, friday evening, when Christ reached Bethania, f) 
and there He remained on the sabbath. Bethania being only 
fifteen furlongs distant from Jerusalem, at the foot of Mount 
Olivet, to the east of the city, many Jews came from Jerusa- 
lem, not for the sake of Jesus only, but that they might see 
Lazarus whom He had raised from the dead. "But the chief 
priests thought to kill Lazarus also, because many of the Jews 
by reason of him went away and believed in Jesus." On the 
next day, that is the day after the sabbath, on the first day of 
the week or our Sunday, Jesus entered Jerusalem solemnly, as 
the king of the daughter of Sion, meek and humble, sitting 
on the colt of an ass. 



*) By Matth. and Mark this supper is mentioned two days before the pass- 
over, yet it does not follow from this that the supper took place on the day 
when mentioned by them. The two Evangelists intend, principally on the 
passage referred to, to state the first motive for the treason of Judas Iscariot, 
which was manifested the first time at the supper in the house of Simon ; 
hence when relating that Judas went two days before the passover to the 
Jews to betray the Lord, they refer back to this supper, where Judas showed 
his avarice. 

f ) Maldonat: — Constat exiis quae diximus Matth. 26, 2. Christum in illo 
ultimo reditu, quo ex Galilaea in Judaeam venit, pridie Sahbati Bethaniam 
venisse, ipso vero sabbato ibi quievisse, ubi fecerunt ei coenam magnam. — 
Maldonat. Patritius differs somewhat. 



136 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

12 THE PASSION-WEEK — FROM THE SOLEMN ENTRANCE OF 

JESUS INTO JERUSALEM UNTIL THE FOURTEENTH OF NISAN, 
(24TH OF MARCH.) 

1. It was the tenth of Nisan, (the. 20th of March) when 
Jesus solemnly entered Jerusalem. On this day the paschal 
lamb was selected for the approaching festivity ; for thus we 
read in Exod. 12, 3. u On the tenth day of this month let every 
man take a lamb by their families and houses." When He was 
coming on His way from Bethania near the descent of mount 
Olivet, the whole multitude of the disciples began with joy to 
praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had 
seen ; but He, seeing the city, wept over it, foretelling its de- 
struction. The effect of this solemn entrance on the Pharisees 
is described by three of the Evangelists. St. John remarks 
"that they 'said among themselves : "Do ye not see that we 
prevail nothing? Behold the whole world is gone after Him." 
St. Luke records that some of the Pharisees from among the 
multitude, said to Jesus: '^Master, rebuke Thy disciples!" and 
St. Mathew says, that when even the children in the temple 
were crying out and saying : Hosanna to the Son of David, 
the chief-priests and scribes were moved with indignation." 
St. Mathew and St Luke state, that Christ having entered 
Jerusalem, went into the temple and cast out all them that 
sold and bought in the temple. St. Mark appears on this occa- 
sion to be the most exact; he says: "He entered into Jeru- 
salem, into the temple ; and having viewed all things 
round about, when now evening was come, He went out 
to Bethania, with the twelve." And the next day, that is 
Monday of the passion-week, when they came out of Betha- 
nia, He was hungry, and when he had seen from afar 
a fig tree having leaves,*) He came, if perhaps He might find 



"*) The words "having leaves' ; seem to denote something peculiar, as if 
the other trees thereabout had been without leaves, or at least, had no such 
leaves as promised figs. — Lightfoot. 



THE PASSION-WEEK. 137 

any thing on it. And when He was come to it, He found noth- 
ing but leaves, for it was not the time for figs,*) and answer- 
ing He said to it : ''May man nevermore hereafter eat fruit of 
thee. And His disciples heard it, and they came to Jerusalem ; 
and when he was entered into the temple, He began to cast 
out them that sold and bought in the temple, and He over- 
threw the tables of the money changers and the stalls of them 
that sold doves, and He suffered not that any man should carry 
a vessel through the temple." Comparing in this passage St. 
Mark with St. Mathew, we see that the first enters more 
minutely into the details, which the other records collectively, 
having in view rather the connexion of the matter than the 
time when they respectively occurred. (Kenrick). It was, 
therefore, on the second day that He cursed the fig-tree, and 
subsequently cast the buyers and sellers out of the temple. 
"And He taught them saying to them: Is it not written, My 
house shall be called the house of prayer to all nations ? but 
ye have made it a den of thieves. " Which when the chief-priests 
and the scribes had heard, they sought how they might destroy 
Him ; for they feared Him, because the whole multitude 
was in admiration at His doctrine. And when evening was 
come, He went forth out of the city, that is, again to 
Bethania, and when they passed by in the morning, re- 
turning again to the city, they saw the fig-tree f) dried up 
from the roots ; and Peter remembering, said to Him : Rabbi, 



*) Figs that do not ripen in season, sometimes ripen afterwards in the spring. 
D. D. Kenrick, Hug. Gutachten II. 83. Joseph Fl. says c: that during ten 
months figs may be found on a fig-tree," Bell. Jud. III. 10, $8. Calniet 
says, that according to a notice which he received from Palestine, figs ripen 
in September, November and December ; those of the last kind remain fre- 
quently on the tree until spring. 

f) The fig-tree was the symbol of the Jewish nation: it had leaves, whilst 
the other trees had not. Thus the Jewish nation had all external appear- 
ance of justice, but it was void of fruit, when Christ came to visit it, and 
drew on itself a curse. — Kenrick. Schegg. Calmet. etc. 



138 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

behold the fig-tree which Thou didst curse, is withered away. 
And Jesus answering said to them : Verily I say to you, if ye 
have faith, and waver not, ye may not only do this of the fig- 
tree, but even if ye say to this mountain: Raise thyself and cast 
thyself into the sea, it shall be done. And all things whatso- 
ever ye shall ask with faith and prayer, ye shall receive." 
And they came again to Jerusalem. This was the third 
day of the week, the tuesday. It was the last day of His 
public preaching, a day of unceasing labor from morning 
to night ; we are better informed of all that He did and 
said on this last day than of any other day of His life 
on earth, that we may learn to understand better how much 
He has labored for our sake. When He was walking in the 
temple, the chief-priests, and the scribes, and the ancients, 
come to him and say: By what authority doest Thou these 
things? and who has given Thee this authority, that Thou 
shouldst do these things ?*) And Jesus answering said to them : 
I will ask you one word, and answer me : and I will tell you 
by what authority I do these things : "Was the baptism of John 
from heaven or from men ?" And when they answered we know 
not, f) Jesus said: Neither do I tell you by what authority 
I do these things." Then He began to speak to them in para- 
bles. 1) The first of them was that of the two sons, of whom one 
would not work in the vineyard of his father, yet afterwards 
went to work ; whilst the other one, though he said "I go," 
did not go after all. 2) The second, is that of the vineyard 
and husbandmen. 3) That of the stone, which the builders re- 
jected, and yet became the head of the corner. 4) St. Matthew 
places here also, the parable of the marriage feast. 5) Now they 
proposed to him the captious question, whether it be lawful to 
pay taxes to Cesar or not. 6) Then He silenced the Sadducees, 
who say there is no resurrection, f) 7) After this came one of the 

*) Matth., 21, 23. Mark, 11, 28. Luke, 20, 2. 

f) They showed by this that they were not disposed to receive the truth. 



THE PASSION-WEEK. 139 

scribes that had heard theni reasoning together, and seeing 
that He had answered them well, he asked Him which was the 
first commandment of all. 8) Haying answered this question, 
He asked them how the scribes say that Christ is the Son of 
David. 9) He admonishes the people to follow the good doc- 
trine of the scribes and Pharisees, but not their bad examples, 
pronouncing terrible woes against their hypocrisy. 10) Sitting 
over against the treasury, He, seeing a poor widow cast in two 
mites, says that she has cast in more than all the rest. 11) 
On this day He spoke also the parable &f the ten virgins and 
of the talents. 12) Going out of the temple, and coming up on 
the Mount Olivet, over against the temple, He foretells the 
destruction of the same, and the signs that shall precede the 
judgment. St. Matth. adds in chap. 25, 31, a description of 
the last judgment. 

2. St. John connects with the solemn entrance into Jerusa- 
lem another fact, not mentioned by the synoptic gospels. It is 
likely that it did not occur on the first day, but on the third 
and last.*) There were, he says, some gentiles who came up to 
adore on the festival day. These, therefore, came to Philip 
and desired him, saying : "Sir, we wish to see Jesus." Philip 
cometh and telleth Andrew, again Andrew and Philip told Jes- 
us." This desire of the Gentiles turned the thoughts of Je- 
sus on His approaching death and its effects. Therefore Jesus 
answered them, saying; "The hour is come, that the Son of 
man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say to you, unless 
the grain of wheat falling in the ground, die, itself remaineth 

alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit Now My 

soul is troubled, and what shall I say ? Father, save Me from 
this hour? But for this cause I came unto this hour."f) And 



*) Adalb. Maier. II. p. 268. Patritius however is of the opposite opin- 
ion. II. 420. 

f) Kenrick : t: For this very purpose He had come. This reflection de- 
termines His acquiescence.' 7 



140 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

finally He concludes in these solemn words : "Father, glorify 
Thy name."*) When He had pronounced this expression of 
heroical resignation, a voice came from heaven: "I have both 
glorified it, and I will glorify it, again." Distinct sounds 
were heard as from the skies, as loud as thunder. St. John 
says : "The multitude, therefore, that stood by and heard, 
said that it thundered. Others said : An angel hath spoken 
to Him." Jesus answered and said: This voice came not 
for Me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of the world; 
now shall the prince of the world be cast out. And I, if I be 

lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself" 

Yet a little while the light is in you Whilst you have the 

light, believe in the light, that you may be children of light." 
"These things," St. John adds, "Jesus spoke and He went away 
and hid Himself from them." A. Maier understands these 
words in the sense, that Jesus went away, never to appear 
again publicly, in order to teach. Hence all that we read 
from v. 37 — 50, are reflections of the Evangelist himself on 
the obstinate unbelief of the Jews. "Although," he says, "Je- 
sus had done so many miracles before them, they did not be- 
lieve in Him However, he continues, many of the 

chief men also believed in Him ; but because of the Pharisees 
they did not own it, that they might not be cast out of the 
synagogue ; for they loved the glory of men more than the 
glory of God." That they however, in this are not excusable, 
he shows by the words of Jesus, which, at least partly, he had 
already given before, namely ch. 1, v. 15. f) 

*) This conflict of feeling was renewed in the garden, and gave occasion 
to the two-fold prayer : "Father let this cup pass away ; nevertheless, not 
My will, but Thine be fulfilled."— Kenrick. 

f) Patritius : " Plane incompertura est, quo die Christus ea dixerit, quae 
sunt in Joann. 12, 44 — 50, nisi quod nemo non intelligit, ea afferri a Joanne 
non historice sed demonstrative, quorum appositione illos coarguit, in quos 
proxime invectus est, quique crediderunt in eum sed propter Pharisaeos 
non confitebantur, ut e synagoga non ejicerentur, quare ilia Christi verba 
ab his Joannis verbis separari non possunt. II 420. 



THE PASSION-WEEK. 141 

3. When Christ concluded His public ministry in the stated, 
most solemn and impressive manner two days before His pass- 
ion, the hatred of the Pharisees had reached its highest pitch. 
As St. John records, they had already, before Jesus appeared 
at the festival, given a commandment, that if any man knew 
where He was, he should tell that they might apprehend Him." 
Of St. Luke we mentioned above a passage, referring to this. 
(Luke 19, 47.). In another place, when Christ had spoken of 
the stone, that "upon whomsoever it shall fall, will crush him 
to atoms," the same Evangelist remarks : "And the chief 
priests and the scribes sought to lay hands on Him the same 
hour ; and they feared the people." The two other Evangelists 
use nearly the same words. (Matth. 21, 45. St. Mark 14, 18.) 
Moreover they add: "Then (two days before the passover) 
the chief priests and ancients of the people were gathered to- 
gether into the court of the high priest, who was called Cai- 
phas, and they consulted together, that they might apprehend 
Jesus by stratagem and put Him to death ; but they said : not 
on the festival, lest perhaps there be a tumult among the peo- 
ple." (Matth. 26, 3, 4,. Mark. 14, 1, 2. ) This plan how- 
ever, to postpone it after the festival, was discarded, when Ju- 
das Iscariot appeared before them, ready to deliver his Master 
into their hands for the price of thirty pieces of silver, in con- 
sequence of which Jesus was put to death against the original 
designs of His enemies on the festival. Judas found proba- 
bly on Wednesday, whilst Christ remained in retirement at 
Bethania, the wished for opportunity to steal away from the 
other Apostles without being noticed, and to conclude the most 
atrocious covenant with the chief priests. u And thenceforth 
he sought an opportunity to deliver Him up," (St. Matth. 26, 
16,) which he found the following day. 



142 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

13. — THE LAST SUPPER ON THE FOURTEENTH OF NISAN (24TH 

OF MARCH.) 

1. On the 14th of Nisan, at sunset, the passover or paschal 
lamb had to be sacrificed and eaten, according to the law. 
Exod. 12, v. 3 — 8. "On the tenth day of this month they 
shall take to them every man a lamb by their families and 

houses and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of 

this month and the whole multitude of the hildren of Israel 

shall sacrifice it in the evening and they shall eat the flesh 

that night, roasted at the fire, and unleavened bread with wild 
lettuce." This day was also called the first day of the un- 
leavened bread ; for though, strictly speaking, the first day of 
the azymes did not begin before the evening of the 14th of 
Nisan, yet commonly the whole 14th day of Nisan was called 
by this name, because the unleavened bread was prepared on 
this day and all leaven was put out of the houses and burned 
before noon.*) It was therefore on the fourteenth of Nisan, 
which fell, according to our calculations on thursday, when the 
disciples came to Jesus, saying: "Where wilt thou that we 
prepare for Thee to eat the passover ?" Matth. 26, 17. Sim- 
ilar to this St. Mark. 14, 12. St. Luke writes : "And the 
day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that 
the passover should be killed ; and He sent Peter and John, 
saying : Go and prepare for us the passover, that we may eat. 
(ch. 22, 7, 8.) According to these passages it is evident, that 
Jesus ate the passover with His disciples on the evening of the 
fourteenth of Nisan, when the days of the unleavened bread had 
already begun. From this we draw two consequences, 1) that, the 
holy Eucharist was instituted in unleavened bread, and 2) that, 
since Christ died the day after the last supper, it was the first 



*) This is confirmed by St. Mark, saying: "Now on the first day of the un- 
leavened bread when they sacrificed the passover, the disciples say to Him." 
Ch. 14, 1, 2, confirmed also by Patritius II, p. 423. 



THE LAST SUPPER. 143 

day of the easter solemnities, the loth of iSisan, when He 
suffered and died for the world on the cross. 

2. But against these our conclusions, very serious objections 
are deduced from the gospel of St. John. In ch. 13, v. 1, we read : 
" Before the festival d-ciy of the passover, Jesus knowing that 

His hour had come and during supper" Here St. John 

undoubtedly speaks also of the last supper, at which Christ ate 
the passover : but since St. John says, that this took place be- 
fore the festival day of the passover, it has the appearance, that 
Christ anticipated this year by one day the exact time when 
the Jews used to eat the paschal lamb. This seems to be more 
confirmed by ch. 18, v. 28, where St. John remarks that the 
Pharisees, when they had led Jesus from Caiphas to the pagan 
governor, went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, 
but that they might eat the passover ; hence it seems that they 
had not yet eaten at that time the passover or the paschal lamb, 
and therefore it would follow, that either Jesus had the legal 
time anticipated or that the Jews had it postponed this year. 
Moreover the same sacred author, speaking inch. 19, 14 of the 
last attempt of Pilate to overcome the violence of the Jews, 
remarks : "And it was the eve (or the preparation) of the pass- 
over, about the sixth hour, and he (Pilate) said to the Jews : 
"Behold your king." From this it seems to be perfectly sure, 
that Christ died the day before the easter-solemnities were cel- 
ebrated, that is, on the day when they prepared for them and 
consequently anticipated the passover with His disciples. 

3. To solve these difficulties, Harduin and others supposed 
that the Galileans used to eat the passover one day sooner, than 
the other Jews. But there is neither any passage in Scrip- 
ture, nor any reliable testimony in tradition to be shown, which 
would support such a supposition; and even if such a custom could 
be proved it would not be probable that Jesus, who was of the tribe 
of Juda, and observed strictly the law, would not rather have ob- 
served with the Jews a commandment, so distinctly expressed 



144 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

in the Mosaical law. Abandoning, therefore, this conjecture, 
some supposed, that the Jews, because the second day of east- 
er or of the unleavened bread was that year a sabbath, 
had postponed the beginning of the easter-solemnities by 
one day ; for the first day of easter being of great 
solemnity would prevent them from making the necessa- 
ry preparations for the immediately following sabbath ; Jesus, 
however, they continue, has eaten the passover on the day 
pointed out by the law, without postponing it. Hence the dif- 
ference between the synoptical gospels and that of St. John con- 
sists in this, that the former speak of the day, when the pass- 
over had to be celebrated according to the letter of the law, 
whilst St. John speaks of the day to which it was postponed 
that year by the Jews. And no doubt this conjecture would 
remove all difficulties, had it not the same defect, as the forego- 
ing. It cannot be shown neither by Scripture, nor by tradition, 
that such a postponement was lawful, or ever was made. Hence 
we are compelled to join the opinion of those who say, that neith- 
er an anticipation, nor a postponement of the passover took 
place on either side, but Jesus ate the passover at the same time, 
when the Jews did, according to the law, that is on the eve- 
ning of the fourteenth of Nisan, the statements of the synop- 
tical gospels and of St. John, if properly understood, being by 
no means contradictory. 

4. The Jews used different measures of the day, a legal, a 
natural and an artificial ; the legal day lasted from evening to 
evening ; the natural from midnight to midnight and the artificial 
from the rising of the sun until the next morning. We know 
from what we said above, how far the 14th of Nisan could be 
called the first day of the unleavened bread. *) Moreover the 
whole festival time was commonly called "the days of the un- 
leavened bread;" the word "passover" was used in divers sen- 

*) Since the exile, the whole 14th of Nisan was counted to the sacred time; 
hence Jos. Fl. speaks of eight days of the fetival. Schegg. IIT, 342, 



THE LAST SUPPER. 145 

ses, sometimes to designate the eve of the festival, when the pas- 
chal lamb was eaten, sometimes the paschal lamb itself, and 
finally also in a more extended sense the whole festival and all 
the sacrifices, connected with the festival.*) Having these 
simple remarks in mind, all difficulties disappear, as it were, by 
themselves. We understand easily, how the synoptical gospels 
could say that the passover was prepared and eaten on the first 
day of the unleavened bread, since not only the evening of the 
14th of Nisan, but the entire day was called the first day of the 
unleavened bread; and if St. John says that the last supper took 
place before the festival of passover, we have no difficulty in- 
reconciling this remark with the other gospels. St. John 
speaks not of the day, measured according to law from evening 
to evening, but according to its natural or artificial measure ; 
and moreover, he uses the word "passover" not of the time 
when the paschal lamb was eaten, but of the whole festival. f) 
In a similar manner the second passage from John ch. 18, v. 
28, is divested at once of all its difficulty, if the word " pass- 
over" is according to our remarks understood not only of the 
paschal lamb, but of all the sacrifices of the easter-time. To 
confirm, what we said above, we refer to Deut. 16, 2, where 
we read : "And thou shalt sacrifice the phase (passover,) to 
the Lord thy God, of sheep and of oxen in the place which the 
Lord thy God shall choose." Hence if St John in the passage 

*) Schegg. Ill, 342. Wahl. CI. N. T. s. v. Tlaoxa. St. Luke 22, I, 
:i Now the feast of the unleavened bread, which is called passover. was at 
hand." 

f) In this manner the difficulty was answered by St. Thorn., the Catech. 
Eom. Benedict XIV and lately by Schegg, "Cum autem dicitur, Joan. 13, 
ante diem paschae^ 7 intelligitur hoc fuisse quarta decima, quod tunc evenit 
feria quinta : nam luna existente quinta decima erat dies solemnissimus 
Paschae apud Judaeos et sic eundem diem quern Joannes nominat ante diem 
festum Paschae, propter distinctionem naturalium dierum, Matth. nominat 
primum diem azymorum, quia secundum ritum Judaicae festivitatis solemni- 
tas incipiebat a vespera praecedentis diei" S. Th. p. 3, q. 46. a. 9, Catech. 
Rom. p. 2. c. 13. 

10 



146 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

referred to, remarks " that the Pharisees "would not enter into 
the hall of Pilate, that they might eat the passover," it does 
not follow that they had at that time not yet eaten the paschal 
lamb, but the remark of St. John can be understood without 
any difficulty of the other paschal sacrifices during the whole 
easter-week, from which they would have been excluded by 
entering the unclean house of a pagan. 

5. The greatest difficulty arises, no doubt, from the third 
passage of St. John, ch. 19, 14 : " It was the eve of the pass- 
over" when Pilate said to the Jews: "Behold your king." 
To get out of this perplexity, we may be guided by comparing 
St. Luke ch. 23, 54, where we read of the day on which Jesus 
died : " And it was the day of preparation, and the sabbath was 
drawing near." Hence we perceive, that also St. Luke speaks 
of a day of preparation, yet not for the paschal week, but for 
the sabbath. St. Mark says in a similar way ch. 15, 42 : "Be- 
cause it was the Purasceve, that is the day before the sabbath." 
These two Evangelists stated before this, that the time of the 
unleavened bread or easterhad already begun the foregoing day; 
hence we conclude 1) that the sabbath, on the parasceve of 
which Christ died, was not, as some supposed, the first day of 
easter, but the second ; 2) that according to these Evangelists, 
the necessary preparation for the sabbath could be made on the 
first day of the easter-solemnities. From this we see, that the 
words of St. John "Eratantem Parasceve Paschae" are not to be 
understood of the parasceve for the passover, but of the para- 
sceve of or rather during the passover for the sabbath which 
fell on the second day of the easter-festival.*) To understand 



*) Kenrick remarks to John, 14, 14. "The eve of the paschal sabbath, 
that is, of the sabbath, which occurred -within the octave of the paschal sol- 
emnity." In a similar manner we say "Easter-saturday, easter-sunday. 
easter-monday, Dominica Paschae, fer. II. Paschae." But the translation 
of Kenrick "it was the eve of the passover." we cannot approve ; we would 
prefer the translation of the Doway Bible, "and it was the parasceve of the 
Pasch." 



THE LAST SUPPER. 147 

the passage of St. John in this sense, can make no difficulty, 
since, as we said, the word "passover" was also understood of 
the whole easter-week. It has been said, we know, that the 
parasceve or the day of preparation for the sabbath could not 
be the 15th of Nisan, that is, the first day of the easter-festi- 
val, since this day was of great solemnity, and consequently it 
was not allowed to prepare anything on this day, and much 
less, to bring Christ from one tribunal to the other, and execute 
the sentence of death. But this is not correct; for though the 
first day of the azymes was a most solemn day, yet it was law- 
ful to prepare the necessary eatables (food) as we read in Exod. 
12, 16, "The first day shall be holy and solemn, and the sev- 
enth day shall be kept with the like solemnity; you shall 
do no work, except these things that belong to eating." In St. 
Matth. ch. 26, 3. 4. we read, that when the members of the 
Sanhedrim consulted to put Jesus to death, they said: "Not 
on the festival, lest perhaps there be a tumult among the people." 
From this we may justly infer, that they did not consider the 
intended proceedings against Christ unlawful on this day,*) but 
rather dangerous on account of a tumult among the people. 
Moreover, as we remarked above, from St. Mark's and St. 
Luke's statements it must be admitted that the preparation for 
the sabbath could be made on the first day of the easter-sol- 
emnity. 

6. The Jews, before supper, washed their hands and face;f) or, 
as others say, the guests invited to a banquet, took first a bath, 
and then in the house or the room of the banquet, by a servant 
the feet were washed from the dust, that might adhere to them 
in walking from the bath to the table. J) According to this 
custom Jesus acted, when rising from the supper, He began to 
wash the feet of His disciples, in order to teach humility by 



*) Doellinger, (1. c. p. 41:) agrees to this, that Christ died on the loth 
of Nisan. 
f) Kuinoel, Tittman, Bloomfield. 
%) Wetstein. 



148 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

example, that, as He has done to them, so they do also, that is 7 
not so much by imitating this special act of humility, but by 
cherishing the spirit with which it was performed, and being 
ready for similar acts.*) Here the question has been raised, 'at 
what time of the supper this act of humility was performed. St. 
John says, according to the Vulgate, "Coena facta," which is 
commonly translated: "When supper was done" or "The supper 
being ended." Hence Calmet considers the washing of the 
feet to have taken place even after the institution of the Bless- 
ed Eucharist, being the last act of the supper, except the hymn, 
which concluded the whole. f) This explanation however is 
contradicted by v. 12., where we read, that, having washed the 
feet, He sat down again. Maldonat, Suarez, Cornel, a. Lap. 
Benedict XIV, and others propose another order of proceed- 
ing : They distinguish a double or threefold supper ; the first, 
they say, was the eating of the paschal lamb with bitter herbs 
and azymes, the second was then a common meal, at which those 
who were not satiated by the paschal lamb, the families being 
sometimes large, could take common food ; the third consisted 
in the institution of the Blessed Sacrament. According to 
them the words of St. John "when supper was done" had to 
be understood of the eating of the paschal lamb. This, says 
Suarez, was the proper order ; first the legal supper according 
to the ancient law ; then the washing of the feet in order to 
indicate with how great reverence the future Sacrament must 
be received ; finally the institution of the Sacrament itself. Yet 
these distinctions of a legal and common supper cannot be sus- 
tained. As far as we are informed by the Jewish traditions,, 
the supper of the paschal lamb proceeded in the following 
order, namely : The master of the family began the feast 
with a cup of wine, which, having solemnly blessed, he distrib- 
uted among the guests, and having done so, he washed his 



*) Kenrick, John, 13, 15. 

f) Patritius consents to this II, 426, 



THE LAST SUPPER. 149 

hands. Then the supper began with unleavened bread and bit- 
ter herbs, of which, when all had tasted, one of the younger 
persons present, commonly a child asked the reason and mean- 
ing of the feast (Exod. 12, 26,) by which the haggadah was in- 
troduced, that is, the showing forth or explanation of the sense 
of the festivity. After this the master of the family rose and 
took another cup of wine, and washed his hands again, before 
the lamb was tasted. Then followed the eating of the pass- 
over by all, after which a third and even a fourth cup of wine 
was blessed and drunk, together with the paschal lamb ; if the 
family was large, meat of a sacrifice was served up ; but com- 
mon food or any thing after the passover was not taken. This 
was the order of the supper, observed on this occasion, from 
which every body sees that the foregoing explanation of the 
"coena facta" cannot be admitted. Several modern authors 
give, therefore, another translation of the same words; they 
say, the use of the perfect in the Greek and Vulgate does not 
imply that the supper was over ; u coena facta" can be given 
without any difficulty by "whilst the supper was made" or 
"during the supper" and they place then the washing of the 
feet either after the drinking of the first cup, when the master 
of the family washed his hands, or after the drinking of the 
second cup, immediately before eating the paschal lamb. *) 
7. By our remarks on the order, observed at the supper of 
the passover, another difficulty finds an easy solution. It ap- 
peared strange to some interpreters that St. Luke and St. 
Paul, when speaking of the chalice in the institution of the 
Blessed Sacrament, add the remark, "After He had supped" 
whilst when speaking of the bread in the same institution, no such 
remark is made, whence it seems to follow, that the consecra- 



*) Ad. Maier II, 582. Kenrick, Doddrige. ' ; A part of the discourse 
which John mentions after the feet were washed, is mentioned by the other 
Evangelists, as passing at supper; nay, John himself, when he speaks (v. 26) 
of Christ dipping the sop and giving it to Judas after this, plainly shows 
that the supper was not ended." — Doddrige. 



150 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

tion of the bread took place during the supper, and that of 
the chalice separately after it. But considering, that, as we 
said, on three occasions a cup of wine was taken, namely at 
the beginning of the festivity, then immediately before the 
the eating of the paschal lamb, and thirdly after it, we under- 
stand perfectly the remark, made by St. Luke and St. Paul ; 
they want to say by it, that the institution of the Sacrament 
does not refer to the cup of wine, blessed before or during the 
supper, but after it. 

"When Judas Iscariote, after having received the morsel, had 
gone out (and it was night), Christ spoke His last farewell 
discourse to His disciples, full of the most tender love, as we 
read in St. John, ch. 13. — ch. 17. • St. Matthew gives the con- 
clusion of the supper in the words : " And after a hymn, they 
went out unto Mount Olivet." St. John writes : "When Jesus 
had said these things, He went forth with His disciples over 
the brook Cedron, where there was a garden, into which He 
entered with His disciples," John, 16, 1. 



1-1 — THE PRAYER IX GETHSEMAXI. 

1. Then Jesus came with them into a country-place, (or 
garden) which is called Gethsemani, and He said to His disci- 
ples: " Sit ye down here till I go yonder and pray." And 
taking with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebidee, He began 
to grow sorrowful and to be sad; then He said: "My soul is 
sorrowful even unto death ;*) stay ye here and watch with me," 
Matth. 26, 36. The tradition points out this country-place of 
Gethsemani near to Stephen's Gate beyond the brook Cedron, 
at the foot of Mount Olivet. It is surrounded with a wall; 
the spots where Jesus prayed, where the disciples slept and 

*) Kenrick, ik The Greek terms denote extreme grief verging on the ex- 
tinction of life." 



THE PRAYER IN GETHSEMAXI. 151 

Judas betrayed his Master, are yet shown to the pilgrim. A 
grotto is the supposed place where He sufferred the anguish of 
death. A few old olive trees stand at the sacred spot, marked 
already at the time of St. Jerom by a chapel, erected thereon. 
2. Here the question is raised by ancient and modern wri- 
ters, whether the sorrow of Christ was a true, real sorrow. 
St. Augustin in his commentary to psalm 93, answers : "Jesus 
took on Himself in the same manner the sorrow in which He 
assumed the flesh ; for do not believe that the Lord was not 
sad ; if we would deny this, whilst the Gospel says of Him : 
My soul is sorrowful even into death," it would follow, that 
likewise, when the Gospel says that Jesus slept, He had not 
slept ; and when it says that He ate He had not eaten. Hence 
whatsoever is written of Him, is a fact, is a reality. Was He 
also sad ? By all means ; but He took the sorrow on Himself 
by His will, as He assumed the flesh by His will, and as He 
assumed by His will the real flesh, so also real sorrow."' But 
is it not contradictory to say, that the God-man was really sor- 
rowful ? We answer to this question with St. Thomas,*)l) He 
could be sad and sorrowful, because, being real man, He could 
be subjected to all the affections and sensations of human na- 
ture, but with this difference, that these sensations were never, 
as in sinful man, refractory to the dictates of His reason and 
higher will. In the same manner, as He could feel joy, sur- 
prise and pain, He could also feel sorrow. 2) He could be 
sorrowful because such was His will. It was the will of His Fath- 
er, to whom He was obedient into the death for our sakes ; for 
though He enjoyed in His human soul the beatific vision in 
consequence of the hypostatical union, it does not follow that 
this vision which excludes all sorrow in the life to come, also 
excluded it in Christ as long as He was in the form of a ser- 
vant in this mortal life, being made in the likeness of man and 



) St. Thorn. S. Th. p. 3. q. 15, a. 4. 



152 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

in habit found as a man,*) for because the eternal Word united 
to Himself the human nature for this purpose that He might 
redeem us by His suffering and death, he attempered the joy 
flowing from the divine vision, in such a manner that He did 
not exclude neither from the soul nor the body the affections 
and sensations natural to man. In this the divine vision of 
the human nature in Christ differs from the beatific vision of 
the Saints in heaven, that, whilst they enjoy it in the state 
of glory, He enjoyed the same in this life in the state of infir- 
mity and trial. §) To this we may add, that the anguish of 
death could be even more grievous to Him than to another 
man, as according to the most harmonious union of His human 
soul with His human body, it was more revolting to His human 
nature, that soul and body should be violently separated. He 
foresaw moreover all the particulars of the approaching cruel 
treatment and death, by which He had, according to the will 
of His father, to atone for the sins of all men, of whom never- 
theless He knew many would perish by their obstinacy and 
wilful blindness. Hence St. Jerom says : "He was not sad by 
fear of suffering, but on account of the wretched Judas and 
the scandal of the apostles and the reprobation of the Jewish 
nation and the ruin of Jerusalem." And St. Ambrose exclaims: 
"Thou art sorrowful, Oh Lord, not on account of Thy wounds, 
but of mine ; not of Thy death, but of our infirmity." 



X) Kenrick : "He delivered himself up to sorrow. No passion could con- 
trol Him, but He was pleased to submit to human feelings, as he judged it 
expedient for our salvation." St. Thorn. 1. c, "Anima naturaliter vult 
uniri corpori, et istud fuit in anima Christi, quia comedit et bibit et esuriit. 
JErgo separatio erat contra naturale desiderium ; ergo separari erat ei 
triste." 

$) Perrone Comp. Prael. Theol. de incarn. n, 249. Cum verbum natu- 
ram humanam hunc in finem sibi copulaverit, ut patiendo moriendoque nos 
redimeret, gaudium ex divina visione profluens ita attemperavit, ut sive ab 
anima sive a corpore affectiones et passiones naturales non removeret. Hac 
Tatione ambo haec inter se componuntur. Quae ratio cum non militet aeque 
^pro beatis comprehensoribus, qui jam in termino constituti sunt, exinde patet 
inter illos et Christum discrimen, qui eimul comprehcnsor et viator eztitit. 



THE PRAYER IN GETHSEMANI. 153 

2. "And going a little further, He fell upon His face, pray- 
ing and saying : My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice 
pass from Me. Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou." 
Matth. 26, 39. To understand correctly this prayer of the 
Lord, the theologians remark, that in Christ are two wills, a 
divine and a human, and also two intellects, a divine and a hu- 
man ; for as in Him two natures are united in one person, each 
of these natures must possess its own properties, so that noth- 
ing was wanting to the divine nature in Christ, that is of God, 
and at the same time that the human nature in Him was en- 
dowed with all the faculties which, sin excepted, pertain to hu- 
manity. Hence also in Christ, the human will, as in another 
man, can be divided into two parts, of which the one is called 
the rational or higher (human) will, the other the sensitive will 
or rather sensual appetite ; in consequence of this sensual will 
or appetite being a faculty of the human nature in Christ, it 
could happen, that since this inferior will longs by its own 
and natural motion for those things which are agreeable to the 
sensitive nature, and recoils from all that is contrary to the 
same, the divine and higher or rational human will in Christ 
desired such objects which the sensitive will rather abhorred. 
By this a certain appearance of repugnance could arise be- 
tween these different wills in Christ, but never a discord, since 
the inferior will always was subjected to the higher will in Him.*) 
Hence some say, the sensual appetite in Christ was moved and 
directed by the divine and rational will in such a manner, that 
it, though following the order of its nature, remained always 
under the dominion of reason, obeying her perfectly in every 
thing. This is distinctly perceived in the prayer of the Lord. 



*) St. Hilarius says, that the infirmities of Christ differed in a fourfold 
manner from ours ; for ours are unavoidable, (coactae), deserved, they rule 
over us, and nothing is within us, that is not subject to them ; on the con- 
trary in Christ they were by His will (voluntarirae), they were admitted for 
our sakes, were tempered according to His will, and did not affect His di- 
vine, but only human nature." Perrone, comp. Th. vol. 2, p. 50 



154 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

He prayed : "Let this chalice pass from Me; "and again: 
•' Not as I will ;" behold here the human, not rational but sen- 
sitive will in Christ, that recoils naturally, from the suffering 
and death, as contrary and dreadful to nature, yet not in a 
repugnant manner, but entirely submissive. And when He 
prayed: "But as Thou wilt," He showed His divine will, 
which He had in common with the Father ; and when He add- 
ed: "Not My will, but Thy will be done," He manifested 
His higher human or rational will, perfectly consenting to the 
divine will.*) 

3. St. Hilarius observes that some Christians, misled by a 
false piety, had blotted out of the gospel of St. Luke the his- 
tory of the bloody sweat and of the angel, strengthening the 
Lord, fearing, lest the enemies of Christ might abuse it against 
His divinity, but there is no doubt that the passage referred to 
is genuine. We must rather say, that Christ, as He submitted 
Himself to the power of man, to be nailed to the cross, also 
voluntarily delivered Himself to grief in such a degree that His 
soul was moved by all the affections to which another human 
being would have been subjected in a similar situation, only 
excluding all that would be a moral defect or sin; for He 
wanted to suffer for the sins of man ; and concerning the 
strengthening by the angel, we say, that for the same reason, 
for which He vouchsafed to be according to His human nature 
less than the angels, He admitted the strengthening by an 
angel, as far as His human nature had become weak and pow- 
erless through deadly sorrow, f) 



*) Petavius, (Theol. Dogm, torn. II. lib. IX. c. 6.— c. 9.) says : that 
the prayer of the Lord in Gethsemani is the principal passage to prove 
plainly the doctrine of the church on the two wills in Christ. 

f) Kenrick Luc. 22. 43. 



CHRIST IN THE COURT OF CAIPHAS. 155 

15. — CHRIST m THE COURT OF CAIPHAS. 

1. The apprehension of the Lord by His enemies, as re- 
corded in the four gospels, offers no difficulty. Having shown 
once more His divine power to them, and having disowned all 
violent resistance on the side of His disciples, He permitted 
them to lay-hands on Him, to hold and to bind Him. They led 
Him away first to Annas, for he was father-in-law*) to Caiphas 
who was the high-priest of this year. (John, 18, 13.) This 
Annas is called high-priest together with Caiphas by St. Luke 
ch. 3, 2. "Under the high-priests Annas and Caiphas;" and 
again in the Act. 4, 6. St. Luke, speaking of a council of the 
Sanhedrim, names him first, and as it seems, the only high- 
-priest, for thus we read : And Annas the high-priest and Cai- 
phas, and John (Jonathas,) etc. From Jos. Fl. we know: 1) that 
Annas (the elder) was high-priest from T59 — 767. U. C. in which 
year he was deposed by the new procurator, Valerius Gratus. Five 
of his sons and one son-in-law, Uariitog 6 ml Kaia 9 act) were within a 
few years his successors. He was very rich and belonged probably 
to the sect of the Sadducees ; for those who apprehended Peter 
and John, (Act. 4. 2, 6,) were Sadducees, at the head of whom 
Annas, the high-priest, appears. 2) It was his youngest son 
Ananias, or as Jos. Fl. calls him, Ananus, J) before whom St. 
Paul stood. (Act. 22, 1, 2.) He followed in the footsteps of 
his father. Jos. Fl. says: "When Festus was dead and his 
successor Albinus had not yet arrived, Ananus considered 
this a favorable time for his severity (that is, for his hatred 



*) k 'It appears from Josephus that Annas had been high-priest before 
his son-in-law Caiphas, so that though he had resigned that office to 
him, yet the people paid so much regard to his experience, that they brought 
Jesus first to him. We do not read of any thing remarkable which passed 
at the house of Annas." — Doddrige. 

f ) Caiphas was high-priest that same year. The high priest's commission 
was during life ; but there were now, such frequent changes, that it was be 
come almost an annual office. — Jenkins. 

X) This Ananus is expressly called a Sadducee by Jos. Fl. 



156 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

against the Christians) ; he appointed a court and ordered them 
to summon James, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ, 
and some others with him, to charge them with an accusation 
of having trespassed the law, and therefore to stone them.*) 
3) Of Joseph Caiphas we learn from Jos. FL, that he occupied 
the dignity of a high-priest during ten years, f) Comparing 
with the statements of Jos. FL that which we read in the gos- 
pels, we shall find that both authorities agree in all main 
points ; for in the gospels we read, 1) that both, Annas and 
Caiphas, are called high-priests, (Luk. 3, 2,) 2) that St. John in 
two passages, speaking of Caiphas, adds the remark, that he 
was high priest during this year', and 3) that once (Act. 4, 2.) 
Annas is not only placed before Caiphas, but even he alone is 
styled "the high-priest." Hence we see, that the gospels are 
in accordance with Jos. FL, 1) concerning the names of the 
two principal high-priests of that time ; 2) concerning 
the disorder in regard to this dignity by the inter- 
ference of the Romans; 3) that Annas, though deposed, 
retained great influence ; 4) that he and his family, belonging 
to the Sadducees, were natural enemies of Christ. Yet one 
point in the statements of the gospel seems to require a closer 
examination ; that is, how St. Luke could speak of two high 
priests at the same time. Petavius (in Doctr. temp. X, 58,) 
and many other writers, following herein the opinion of St. 
Augustin, answer, that there were really two high-priests at 
that time, discharging the pontifical office by turns, just as the 
Roman consuls used the fasces. Bloomfield thinks rather that 
Annas acted as the deputy of Caiphas and received the title by 
courtesy. Others suppose, and this seems to be the most prob- 
able opinion, that Annas, having been high-priest for a long 
period, retained the titleX) after his deposition, which proceed- 



*) Jos.Fl. Arch. XX, 9. 1. 8. 
f) Jos. Fl. Arch. I, 1, et 4, 3. 
%) The term "ap^epeiV is used in scripture in a two-fold sense, 1) to 



CHRIST IN THE COURT OF CAIPHAS. 157 

ing from the political power must have been odious to the Jews, 
and with the title some influence, the more so, as his successor 
in office was his own son-in-law. The remark of St. John, 
saying that Caiphas was the high-priest "illius anni" of that 
year, refers probably to the disturbed state of this dignity at 
that time, since after Annas in about one year's time there 
succeeded four high-priests one after the other. f) 

2. Why was Christ first brought to Annas? Some suppose 
that he was properly the contriver of the measure, and there- 
fore Christ was led to his house in the first instance, that his 
intructions might be received as to ulterior measures. J) Ac- 
cording to St. Augustin and Chrysostom, it was to gratify the 
wicked man by the sight of Jesus in bonds. Annas sent him 
directly to Caiphas without entering into any investigation ; 
for what we read in John, 18, v. 14-24, did not occur in the 
presence of Annas, but of Caiphas. Yet v. 24 causes some 
difficulty. St. John writes : "And Annas sent Him bound to 
Caiphas, the high-priest ;" so that it seems rather, that all 
that we read from v. 14-24, had taken place in the house of 
Annas, before Christ was sent to Caiphas. Still comparing 
St. John's narrative with the other gospels, it can scarcely be 
denied that v. 24 must be understood in another sense. The 
Evangelist supplies here what he had omitted to mention in v. 
13; the verb of the sentence must therefore be taken in the 



denote " the pontifex, the high-priest, summus saeerdos ; 2) also the princes 
or heads of the twenty-four sacerdotal families were called "ap^tepeZc," cf- 
Matth. ch. 2, v. 4. 

f) Haneberg states : "Annas was high-priest for eleven years, until 24, 
A. Ch. then succeeded Issmael, Eleazer, Simon ; and finally Josephus Cai- 
phas from 25—35 A. Ch. (Archaeol, p. 193.). 

X) Kenrick. — Voss: Harm. ev. 1. 2, c. i. "Hoc honoris est habitum An- 
nse, quia foret socer Caiphoe principis sacerdotum, quern credibile est nihil 
sine socero agere solere, et erat ejus domus in via ut prsetereunda foret eun- 
tibus ad Caipham quemadmodum ait August tract. 113, ut verisimile sit mili- 
tes voluisse oculos senis pascere ejus spectaculo, quem in triumpbura duce- 
rent, ut est ap. Chrys. (Horn. 83j in loan.) 



158 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

sense of a prseterplusperfect, and therefore the whole sentence is 
to be translated : "And Annas had sent Him bound to Caiphas." 
This is, at least now the common interpretation of this verse.*) 
3. The four Evangelists mention the denial of Peter. They 
all agree in the essential parts of the fact : 1) That Peter de- 
nied the Lord thrice. 2) That he became conscious of his 
sin by the cock's crow, and wept bitterly ; but they vary a 
good deal concerning the special circumstances of the fact. 
St. Matth. says that Peter denied first, asked by a maid-ser- 
vant, then again by another maid, and thirdly by those pres- 
ent ; similar St. Mark, though it seems that according to him Pe- 
ter was twice asked by the same maid. St. Luke, ch. 22, states, 
that Peter denied first at the question of a maid, next of a man, 
and thirdly again of another man. St. John agrees in regard to 
the first denial; but the second was according to him occasioned 
by more than one, and the third by the high-priest's servant, 
who was a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off in Gethsem- 
ani. Moreover St. Matth. relates, that Christ foretold to Pe- 
ter, that he would deny Him thrice before the cock would have 
crowed that night ; so also St. Luke and St. John. But St. 
Mark says that Peter denied first, and then when he went out, 
the cock crowed; after this he denied the Lord twice more, and 
the cock crew again. " And Peter remembered the word that 
Jesus had said to him: Before the cock crow twice thou 
wilt thrice deny Me. And he began to weep." The first 
difficulty concerning the persons who occasioned the denial, 
has been answered satisfactorily by St. Thomas, saying : 
Peter denied first asked by a maid-servant, then having gone 
out and returned again, he was asked by another maid, who, 
however, was not alone, but conversing with others, who also put 



*) Kenrick, A. Maier, Natal. Alex, and already Suarez observes: Prseteri 
turn illud u misit ; ' positum est pro prgeterito plusquamperfecto "miserat." 
Disp. 35. Patritius, however supposes, that Annas lived in the same house 
with Caiphas. II. p. 429. Compare Matth. 14, 3. John. 6, 22. Alex. Butt- 
man Gram, for the N. T., p. 173. 



CHRIST IN THE COURT OF CAIPHAS. 159 

similar questions to Peter; the third time he was asked by several 
present, among whom the kinsman of Malchus testified that he 
knew him from seeing him in the garden as a follower of Jesus. 
On the second difficulty, the cock's crowing, we must, before 
all remark, that the cock crows first at midnight, and then 
again two or three hours before sun-rise, of which the second 
is commonly understood by "the cock's crowing" or "galloci- 
nium," used to measure the time before day-break, hence St. 
Matthew, St. Luke and St. John, who say that Peter denied 
thrice the Lord before the cocks crow, mean the crowing at the 
second time. St. Mark however specified the time of the three 
denials more distinctly ; he places then the first denial before 
the first crowing about midnight, and the two other towards 
dawn.*) St Luke acids the touching remark : "And the Lord 
turning, looked on Peter, and Peter remembered." According 
to Mark 14, 66, Peter appears to have been in a different place 
from that where the Lord was ; he was in the court beloiv, that 
is, in the yard enclosed by the building, where a fire was lighted 
up. Some fathers, St. Augustin, St. Leo, etc., understand there- 
fore the words of St. Luke not of a look by the physi- 
cal eyes but by the eyes of divine mercy which turned 
him to penance ; yet we would say, that nothing prevents us 
from supposing either that Christ, after having been condemned, 
was led out from the tribunal, or also that Peter entered it. 



*) Another objection is made by some modern Jewish authors, saying 
that it was against the law to have any cock in Jerusalem. Maimonides de 
templo C. VII. 14, says: "Etiam Israelitis prohibitum est gallos alere Hieroso- 
lymis propter sacra," Others say, all cocks were especially kept away from 
Jerusalem at the passover. But on the other side it is certain, that also the 
talmud measures the nights by the cock's crow ; we read of it also in Tob. 8, 11. 
Hence some answer to the dimiculty, that if really there was no cock at that 
time in Jerusalem, the time, elsewhere known by the cock's crow, was given 
out by another sign, also called cock's crow. Doddrige says, one might con- 
clude, that in spite of the custom, some cock was accidentally or by purpose left 
behind, perhaps in the house of Pilate, as the Romans used chickens for their 
auspices. 



160 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

4. "And when the morning was come, all the chief-priests 
and ancients of the temple took counsel against Jesus, that 
they might put Him to death." Matth. 27, 1, Mark 16,1. — St. 
Luke omitting altogether the council held at night in the 
house of Caiphas, speaks only of this council in the morning, 
(ch. 22, v. 66): "And as soon as it was day, the ancients of the 
people, and the chief-priests and scribes came together, and 
they brought Him into their council," proposing then to Him 
the same questions which, according to St. Matth. and St. 
Mark, had been proposed at night. This discrepancy is com- 
monly explained by saying, that the sentence pronounced at 
night against Christ was illegal. The assembly at night was/ 
therefore, held for no other purpose, but to have the case pre- 
pared for a speedy decision in the morning;*) yet Schegg, Ken- 
rick and others say, there was scarcely time to dismiss and 
reassemble the council, as Christ was condemned in the first 
council towards the morning, therefore Kenrick supposes that 
the two first evangelists (Matth. 27 1, and Mark 15 1,) resume- 
the narrative of the proceedings against Christ, by stating the 
result of the trial which was followed by devising measures to 
put their sentence of death into execution, and St. Luke, omit- 
ting the details of the trial at night, speaks only of its conclu- 
sion towards morning. To observe the ordinary hours of judicial 
proceedings was of no importance to them in a case of capital 
punishment, since they had no power to execute it. 

5. Whilst Jesus was brought to Pilate, Judas who had be- 
trayed Him, was seized by despair. The narrative of this 
terrible incident is concluded by a reference to a prophecy of 
Jeremiah," Matth. 26, v. 9. " Then was fulfilled that which was 
spoken by the prophet, who saith : "And they took the thirty 
pieces of silver, the price of Him that was appraised of the 



*) Patritius II. p. 432. — A. Maier quotes Sanh. IV. "Judicia capitalia 
transigunt interdiu et finiunt interdiu, Sohar: 56, n. 2. Sessiones judicii 
instituendae sunt mane. 



CHRIST IX THE COURT OF CAIPHAS. 161 

children of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field,- a& 
the Lord commanded me." This text, however, is not found 
in Jeremiah, but in Zachariah, ch. 11, 12. To solve the diffi- 
culty, some say, that St. Matthew wrote simply " the prophet," 
without specifying any name.*) Others maintain that the four 
last chapters of Zachariah were written by Jeremiah. Schegg 
with some others says, it would be against the doctrine of the 
divine inspiration to admit that Matthew really ascribed a 
prophecy to Jeremiah which we only find in Zachariah- ife&&£ 
others say, that Matthew united two prophecies into one, of 
which one being of Jeremiah, the whole was ascribed to this, 
prophet by the Evangelist. St. Augustinf) writes : "It is fa- 
miliar to the Evangelists that quoting the words or testimonies 
of two prophets, they refer only to one, not to both of them ? 
of which we have an example in Mark, ch. 12, where in a quo- 
tation, the first part of which is taken from Malachias, the 
second of Jesaias, the name of Malachias is entirely withheld., 
and only Jesaias mentioned. Hence, continues St. Augustin ? 
since Jeremiah speaks of purchasing the fieldf) of which Zach- 
arias says nothing, though he prophesies of the thirty silver 
pieces, of which Jeremias makes no mention, Matthew as- 
cribes the whole to Jeremias and withholds the name of Zach- 



*) St. August. — " Primo noverit non omnes codices evangeliorum habere^ 
quod per Her emiam dictum, sedtantum u per prophet am? 1 Yet he adds also 
that the more ancient manuscripts have the name of Jeremiah. 

f ) St. Aug. leb. 3. de consens. Evang. cap. 7, Schegg III, p. 610. Origen 
already says: "Suspicor aut errorem esse scripturae et pro Zacharia positumi 
Jeremiam, ant esse aliquam secretam Jeremiae scripturam. 77 St. Thomas 
refers to St. Augustin, saying: "Augustinus solvit contingereal iquando quod 
volens exprimere nomen unius, occurrit nomen altering, ideo potest esse quod 
cum vellet scribere Zachariam, scriberet Jeremiam," 

X) Jerem 32, v. 9, 14, 15, 43. Calmet, Natal. Alex., and others refer 
to Jerem 18. 1-3, and 19. 1-2. — "Jeremiah 77 is omitted in two manuscripts of 
the 12th century, in the Syriac, the Persian and the modern Greek versions, 
and in some later copies. What renders it likely that the original reading 
was " by the prophet?'' is that Matthew frequently omits the name of the 
prophet in his quotations. — Home. 

11 



162 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

arias, thought his quotation is taken from both of these prophets. 
Moreover we may add an observation made by St. Jerom, that 
the testimony of the two prophets is quoted in this passage of 
St. Matthew according to the usual manner of quoting by the 
prophets and evangelists, who neglecting the order of the 
words, only give the sense of the prophesies referred to. 



16. — CHRIST DELIVERED TO PILATE. 

1. It is difficult to say how far the power of life and death 
was taken at that time from the Jews, considering on one side 
what the Jews said according to St. John, ch. 18, v. 31: " It 
is not lawful for us to put any man to death," and then on the 
other side the proceedings of the chief-priests and the council 
in stoning Stephen to death, (Act, 6, 7,) and again, what power 
Saul received from them for persecuting the christians unto 
death, (Act, 22, 4, 5) and finally, that they would have judged 
Paul according to their law, had not Lysias prevented them, 
(Acts, 24, 6). Some suppose that a distinction must be made 
between sacred and civil causes ; in the former, they say, the 
Jews had at that time the power of capital punishment, which, 
however, had to be ratified by the Roman governor. But the 
civil causes or crimes, especially of sedition, tumult and high 
treason, were withdrawn*) from the jurisdiction of the Sanhe- 



*) This power was probably withdrawn from the Jews, 760 U. C, when 
Archelaus was deposed and Judea put under a Roman governor. The Jew- 
ish tradition, however, gives a later date for it, about forty years before the 
destruction of Jerusalem. Chrysost., Augustin and Kuinoel interpret v. 31: 
" It is not lawful, etc., (according to our law) at the festival." Doellinger 
also maintains this distinction ; moreover he observes that the Jews insisted 
so much on Pilate pronouncing the sentence against Christ, because they 
wanted Him to be crucified as a political criminal ; if they had condemned 
Him for having violated the Mosaical law, the punishment would have been 
death by stoning Him. Besides this, to stone Christ to death on the festival 
day, would have been for them a desecration of the day : to postpone the ex- 



CHRIST DELIVERED TO PILATE. 163 

drim, the cognizance of such causes resting solely with the 
Roman governor of Juclea. Yet it might also be that the 
Jews, though really deprived of all power of capital punish- 
ment, did not in all instances observe exactly this limitation, 
and that they were perhaps on the present occasion so law- 
abiding only on this account, that Pilate the governor, who 
had his residence at Cesar ea, was actually present at Jerusalem 
during the easter-festival. This much at any rate is certain, 
that the limitation of the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim was 
the cause that Christ was delivered to Pilate. The Jews were 
confident that he, though he was not of a friendly disposition 
toward them, would act according to their designs and put 
Christ to death, if they would bring against Him the charge 
of revolt and high-treason ; for it was not long before that 
for such, at least, supposed crimes, Pilate had mingled the 
blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices. St. Luke, 13, 1. 
He was sent, as we stated above, as governor to Palestine in 
the year 779, U. C, and occupied this position until 789, U. 
C. He is blamed by the historians for having provoked the 
Jews frequently, and therefore the more inflamed their sedi- 
tious dispositions. Thus we find him also in the proceedings 
against Christ, as describedby St. John. When the Jews came 
to the Governor's hall, they would not enter, not to be 
defiled. Pilate, therefore, came out to them and said : "What 
charge do ye make against this man ?" These words 
must have been pronounced in an offensive, sneering man- 
ner,*) as to insinuate that the whole affair will be but 

ecution of the sentence until after the festival appeared to them dangerous : 
hence they desired that the sentence be given by Pilate and executed by 
pagan hands. 7 ' — page 457, 1. c. 

*) Langen in der Theolog. Quartalschrift of Tuebingen, n. 3. 1862. offers 
another interpretation: he says the "jus gladiV was taken from the Sanhe- 
drim since the deposition of the Archelaus; but the foregoing Roman gover- 
nors were very indulgent toward the Sanhedrim, so that they commonly 
confirmed the sentence of this Jewish high-council, without any further inves- 
tigation. But not so Pilate; he wanted to know what charge they make 






164 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST- 

a trifling annoyance. This we may conclude from the answer 
of the Jews, who express themselves as offiended. "If He were 
not a malefactor, they said, we should not have delivered Him 
up to you." Pilate therefore said to them : "Take Him your- 
selves and judge Him according to your law." The governor 
knowing probably something previously of Christ, thought that 
the charge against Him was of a religious character, and of less 
importance. Some interpreters suppose, that Pilate in his an- 
swer spoke ironically, or rather mocking the Jews. Yet to 
judge from the following, we must deny this : for as soon as 
Pilate heard that it was nothing less than an accusation unto 
death, he entered without any further objection on the investi- 
gation of the charge. "And they began to accuse Him say- 
ing : We have found this man turning our nation astray, and 
forbidding to pay taxes to Cesar, and saying that He is the 
Christ, the king." Luke, 23, 2. Pilate, however, knowing 
too well the Jews, perceived at once, that they had not deliv- 
ered Christ as they pretended, by their zeal for Cesar, but rather 
by envy (Matth;) hence he went into the hall, called Jesus, 
and said to him : "Art Thou the king of the Jews ?" Jesus an- 
swered : "Sayest thou this of thyself, or have others told it to 
thee of Me?" By this counter-question the true sense in 
which Christ was king, is prepared. "Sayest thou this of thy- 
self? that is, takest thou Me to be a king in thy own sense, in 
the sense as a Roman would understand it, or in that, as others, 
namely the Jews, have told to thee of Me ?" that is, to be the 
Messiah-king in the sense of the Jews?*) Pilate answered, 
somewhat incensed: Am I a Jew? Thy own nation and the 
chief-priests have delivered Thee up to me ; that is, I do not 
speak from myself, I am not pre-occupied by any opinion, as I 



against this man. This was something new to the members of the Sanhe- 
drim, and hence they felt offended. — 1. c. p. 460, 461. 

*) Some interpret the passage in a more simple manner, so that the sense 
would be: Is that your own suspicion or opinion, or not ? Dost thou only 
ask me what others told thee ? 



CHRIST DELIVERED 10 PILATE. 165 

•am no Jew. I know nothing of Thee and Thy kingdom, but 
what others have told me. Jesus now showed to him, that He 
is evidently no king in the political sense of the word, yet that 
He is a king in an infinitely higher sense, a king of a kingdom 
that is not of this world. For this, He says, was I born, and 
for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the 
truth. Pilate was by this answer perfectly satisfied, that Jesus 
was no political offender ; hence he went out to the Jews and 
said to them: "I find no guilt in Him." But they persisted, 
saying : "He stireth up the people, teaching (dangerous and 
seditious doctrine,) throughout all Judea, beginning from Gali- 
lee to this place." The Jews, we see, insisted on the charge 
of a political offence, without, however, any effect on the mind 
of Pilate, who seeing the excitement of the Jews, to get rid of 
the affair without further difficulty, sent Jesus to Herod, when 
he heard that Jesus was from Galilee. But Herod, neither 
though spurning and mocking Him, found guilt in Him, and 
sent Him back to the Roman governor. 

2. Pilate, calling together the chief-priests and the magis- 
trates and the people, declared Christ again to be innocent, at 
least not guilty of death. But fearing the Jews, he thought 
to release Christ in such a manner that they also might be sat- 
isfied. According to St. Luke Pilate proposed first to scourge 
Christ and then release Him ; but according to St. John he 
tried first a milder expedient; he said: "But ye have a custom, 
that I should release one to you at the passover ; will you there- 
fore that I release to you the King of the Jews ?" This custom 
of which Pilate speaks, is nowhere mentioned or spoken of 
before the Roman sovereignty over Judea, hence it is most 
probable, that this jus gratiandi, this right of pardoning, was 
a concession made by the Romans who, like the Greeks, used 
to set culprits free on their festivals;*) yet they all cried : "Not 
this man, but Barrabas ; now Barrabas was a robber." Pilate 

*) Liv. V. 3. 



166 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

yielded not at once to the fury of the Jews ; he spake again, and 
a third time : "Why, what evil hath this man done ? I find no 
cause of death in Him, I will chastise him and let Him go.' 7 
To this earnest resistance, as St Matth. relates, Pilate was 
moved by another grave cause ; for as he was sitting in the 
place of judgment, his wife sent to him, saying.: "Have thou 
nothing to do with that just man ; for I have suffered much 
this day in a dream on account of him." Tradition calls 
Pilate's wife Claudia Procula ; she is said to have become a 
believer in Christ and is counted among the saints by the Greek 
church.*) Yet perceiving that he could not satisfy the fury of 
the Jews in this way, Pilate betook himself to the other, more 
cruel and unjust expedient. "Then, therefore, Pilate took Jesus 
and scourged Him" hoping to appease thereby the rabble. 
The soldiers added wanton insults to the punishment which 
they were ordered to inflict, repeating in the most outrageous 
manner the mockery and buffeting which Christ had suffered 
before in the court of Caiphas and of Herod. Pilate seems 
to have been touched when producing Christ wearing 
the crown of thorns and the purple garment ; he said to the 
Jews: "Behold the man." He said so, remarks Euthymius, 
moved by sympathy, in order that they also might feel sym- 
pathy. And when nevertheless they cried again : " Crucify 
Him," Pilate grows indignant; for certainly it was indignation 
or scorn, when he answered: "Take Him yourselves and cru- 
cify Him ; for I find no guilt in Him." The relentless ene- 
mies of Jesus saw now their machinations near to be frustrated. 
The governor had refused already four times to do according 
to their will, declaring Jesus to be without guilt. Hence they 
changed their charge against Him ; they accused Him no long- 
er as a political offender, but as an evil-doer against the Mo- 
saical law ; they said : "We have a law, and according to the 
law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of 



*) Cornel, a Lap. Fabr. cod. apoc. I. p. 398, Niceph. Hist. I, 30i| 



CHRIST DELIVERED TO PILATE. 167 

God," that is He is a false prophet and a blasphemer, and 
hence according to the law, guilty of death. But this charge 
against Christ made on Pilate an impression quite contrary to 
that which they had expected ; he would not acquiesce in their 
sentence without further investigation, though a sacred cause 
did not belong to his tribunal. "When Pilate had heard this 
saying, he feared the more," he was alarmed, that Christ might 
be really what He proclaimed Himself. As the interpreters 
say, Pilate acted herein probably under the influence of heath- 
en superstition, perhaps suspecting in Christ a demi-god of the 
mythology. Calling to mind the wonderful works of Jesus, 
struck with the divine tranquillity of His countenance, and, no 
doubt, also influenced by the message of his wife, Pilate feared 
to draw on himself the anger of some god, by slaying his son. 
He could also see that the charge of sedition was but a false 
pretence under which the Jews intended to carry out their 
evil design. Hence Pilate entered the hall again and said to 
Jesus: "Whence art Thou ?" that is, he wished to know wheth- 
er Jesus really claimed a divine origin. But Jesus gave him 
no answer. The question was irrelevant to the charge of se- 
dition, which was the only one of which Pilate could take cog- 
nizance ; moreover Jesus knew that Pilate was far from ac- 
knowledging divinity in Him in the true sense, and then, even 
the silence of Jesus was enough to warn Pilate against this 
proceeding. The governor became still more uneasy and 
troubled in his mind, as he manifested in his impatient words 
to Jesus: " Speakest Thou not to me? Knowest Thou not 
that I have the power to crucify Thee and have power to re- 
lease Thee ?" Jesus in His answer reminds the governor that 
there is a higher power above him, to which he is responsible, 
but more yet he who hath delivered Him to Pilate. This warn- 
ing was well understood by the governor ; therefore we read, 
ch. 19, v. 12 : "And thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him." 
He seems to be resolved for a moment to wave all the contra- 
dictions of the Jews ; but they, seeing the resolution of Pi- 



168 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

late, change at once again their charge against Christ ; they 
accuse Him of sedition against Cesar, and threaten to accuse 
Pilate before Cesar. By this stratagem Pilate was overborne; 
on account of other cruel acts he had much to fear of such an 
accusation ; to save himself, he yielded at last, though yet re- 
luctantly, to the demands of the Jews. He brought Jesus 
forth and sat down on the judgment seat, in the place that is 

called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha and he said to 

the Jews: " Behold your king." And taking water washed 
iis hands before the people, saying : "I am innocent of the 
blood of this just man ; look ye to it." None of the Evange- 
lists recorded the exact sentence of death pronounced by Pi- 
late ; some interpreters, therefore, believed that Pilate only 
ianded Jesus over to the Jews without giving a formal sen- 
tence ; but this would be against all form of a legal proceed- 
ing, and moreover, we know that not the Jews but the soldiers 
•of Pilate executed the crucifixion. Hence we cannot doubt, 
that Pilate passed the sentence in the usual form, which, being 
very simple, was omitted by the sacred authors ; it consisted 
♦commonly in the words : " Ibis ad crucem," "Thou wilt go to 
the cross." This seems to be confirmed by St. Luke, 23, 24, 
saying : And Pilate gave sentence (adjudicavit) that their pe- 
tition should be granted. 

3. It was the custom, that those who were condemned to be 
crucified, had to carry their own cross to the place of execu- 
tion, whence we read (John, 19, 17,): "Bearing His own cross, 
He went forth to that place which is called Calvary, but in 
Hebrew Golgotha." This place was outside of Jerusalem ; the 
word signifies the place of skull or skulls, and some say, the 
name originated from the fact, that being the place of execu- 
tion, the skulls of criminals were strewed there ; others think, 
the place being a moderate hill, had the form of skull. A 
most singular, though ancient tradition, favored by Tertullian, 
Origen, St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustin, 
.states, that at the same spot where Christ died, Adam had been 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 169 

buried. St. Jerom rejects this tradition in his commentary 
to St. Matth., but he admits it in his 46 epistle, saying : "It 
is said that in this city (Jerusalem) yea, at this very spot Adam 
had lived and died, whence the place where Christ was cruci- 
fied, was called Calvaria, that is, because there was buried the 
skull of the old man (Aclam), in order that the second Adam, 
that is, the blood of Christ, dropping from the cross, would 
wash off the sins of the first Adam, lying there.*) Christ, 
burdened with His cross, was soon exausted of all physical 
strength, so that His enemies feared they should loose their 
victim, before their vengeance was fully sated ; therefore they 
transferred the burden to a stranger whom they met, Simon 
of Cyrene. He was, as his name indicates, a Jew by descent, 
and probably from Cyrene in Lybia, where a large colony of 
Jews existed at that time. St. Mark adds, that this man was 
the father of Alexander and Rufus, and hence, as in the Acts 
ch. 19, 33, an Alexander is mentioned among the disciples of 
Christ, and a Rufus in the ep., to the Romans, 16. 3, it is be- 
lieved that St. Mark made the said remark to indicate, that it 
was the father of these disciples, well known to the first Chris- 
tians, who carried the cross of the Lord. St. Luke alone men- 
tions one incident more, that eccurred on the way to Calvary ; 
among the multitude there were women who bewailed and la- 
mented Him. (ch. 23, v. 27.) Who they were we know not. 



IT THE CRUCIFIXION. 

1. When they had come to Calvary, they gave Him to drink 
wine mingled with gall, (Matth. 27, 34) or according to St. 



*) Bened. XIV. Fest. J. Ch. p. 117. No reasonable doubt canjbe enter- 
tained that the place which is now called and visited as the Calvary, is real- 
ly the same spot where Christ was crucified ; for though thi s place is now 
within the precincts of Jerusalem yet it is known that the ancient Jerusa 
lem was differently situated from the present. 



170 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

Mark, mingled with myrrh. The Greek term, used by St. 
Matth. is explained of wormwood which was mixed with the 
wine to correct its acidity. St. Aug., Beda and others think, 
that the portion offered to Christ, was mixed of both, of wormwood 
and myrrh. It was usually given to persons about to endure 
a painful death, in order to render them less sensible to their 
torments. Christ tasted it, but He would not drink it, for He 
would not accept this slight alleviation of His sufferings. *) It was 
a Roman custom that to a culprit an inscription was fixed from 
his neck or carried before him, showing forth his crime. Hence 
it is probable that the same was done with Christ, the more so 
as the four Evangelists speak of the inscription, placed over 
His head on the cross. Here we have a most striking instance 
showing that the Evangelists did not always give the very words 
but rather the true sense of a sentence to which they refer. 
St. Matth. gives this inscription in the words: "This is Jesus 
King of the Jews." St. Mark only: "King of the Jews." 
St. Luke : "This is the King of the Jews." St. John seems 
to have given the exact words of the inscription ; he writes : 
"Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." It was written in 
three languages, in Hebrew, or rather Aramaic, being the lan- 
guage of the country, in Greek, because many of the Jews liv- 
ing in the Diaspora, who came to the festival, commonly called 
Hellenists, used this language ; in Latin, being the language of 
the law that overruled Judea. Pilate shows himself vexed 
against the Jews. He would not change the inscription accord- 
ing to their demand, answering : "What I have written, I 
have written." 

2. The Jews had not the punishment of the crucifixion ; the 
Romans used it especially for the slaves, and sometimes for 
free-born men of a low condition, if they were convicted of an 
atrocious crime. Hence St. Augustin says: "There was 
amonor all kinds of death none baser, than this." They had 



) Kenrick ad h. 1. 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 171 

two different forms of the cross, one called "commissa," hav- 
ing the form of a "T" the other called immissa, having the 
cross-beam exceeded by the other. Tertullian maintains, that 
the cross of Christ was of the first form ; yet the common opin- 
ion is against ; as the inscription expressly is said to have been 
put above the head, there was at least some elevation required 
over the transverse beam. The crosses used on such occa- 
sions, were generally not very high, the feet of the sufferer be- 
ing only about three feet from the ground. The body was sus- 
tained by a piece of wood on which he sat or rode, and the 
hands were nailed or tied to the extremities of the transverse 
piece of wood. Whether there was also a suppedaneum ap- 
plied, that is, a piece of wood, on which the feet rested, being 
tied or nailed to it, is doubtful.*) From St. John ch. 20, v. 25, 
27, is properly inferred that Christ was not tied but nailed to 
the cross. The four Evangelists mention that the garments of 
Christ were divided among the soldiers. St. John's statement 
is the exactest ; he says : " The soldiers, therefore, when they 
had crucified Him, took his garments, and they made four 
parts, to every soldier a part, and also His coat (tunic or inner 
garment.). Now the coat was without seams, woven from the 
top throughout. They said then one to another : Let us not 
cut it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be, that the 

Scripture may be fulfilled ch. 19, 23, 24. f) 

3.) It is stated by the gospels that Christ spoke seven times 
on the cross. The first words were His prayer for his ene- 
mies. And Jesus said : "Father, forgive them for they know 
not what they are doing." St. Luke, ch. 23, 24. They were 
partly ignorant, though their ignorance was "affectata," which 
does not excuse them, yet detracts somewhat from the griev- 
iousness of the crime; they were blindened by their passion. 



*) Gretser. lib. I. de cruce. c. 24. 

f ) Haec tunica inconsutilis ctiam num asservari dicitur Augustae Tre- 
viorum camque ab Helena Constantini matre dono datam ferunt Agricio 
Episcopo qui illam in sua condidit Cathedral:. — Benedict. XIV. 1. c. n. 282. 



172 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

In a similar sense St. Peter says, Act. 3. 17 : " And now, 
brethren, I know that ye did it through ignorance, as also your 
rulers." The second words Christ spoke to one of the thieves, 
crucified with Him, saying : " Verily, I say to you, this day 
thou shalt be with Me in paradise," St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 43. 
Here we meet a discrepancy of some importance. St. Matth. 
and St. Mark relate that not only one robber, but that " the 
robbers also reproached him in like manner." St. Jerom and 
St. Chrysostom suppose that at the beginning both of them 
blasphemed. St. Ambrosa concurs in this conjecture, but St. 
Augustin *) shows that the plural number is oftentimes used 
in Scripture, describing the act committed only by one person, 
when such an act is only mentioned shortly in passing by, 
without entering into the details, thus ascribing to more persons 
per syllepsin what strictly speaking is only the act of one per- 
son. Origen remarks, that the words: "This day thou shalt 
be with me in paradise," have been blotted out by some simple- 
minded men, thinking, that they cannot agree with that 
which we know of Christ's soul descending to the bosom of 
Abraham or the limbo of the fathers. Hesychius of Jerusa- 
lem proposed to place a comma after k -to-day," hodie, connect- 
ing it with the foregoing, namely, "I say to-day, thou shalt be 
with Me in paradise." Justin thought, by "paradise" is to be 
understood the terrestrial, whence Adam has been expelled. St. 
Augustin justly distinguishes between the celestial paradise, 
and that abode where the soul of Christ was to be this day, 
that is, the place wherein the just reposed. Paradisus, probably 
an Armenian or Persian word,f) denotes in its first material 
sense a garden, an orchard, pleasure-ground or park. It was 



*) St. August, lib. 3. de consensu Evang. 

•f) It is more probably a Persian word and means originally "a rampart 
of earth or stones, and then every space surrounded by a rampart ; there- 
fore also a garden, park or pleasure-ground, because such places were com- 
monly surrounded by ramparts.*'* '-'-Ewald Jahrbuecher der Biblichen Wissen- 
schf., Jahrg. 5, p. 163. 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 173 

used by the Jews to signify the u sinus Abrahae" (Luke 16, 23.) 
because this part of the inferior world or Hades, understood 
by "sinus abrahae," was aplace of anticipated joy. St. Thomas 
says: "gandium magnum erat in limbo patrum de gloria sperata 
(S. Th. III. quaest. 32, a. 5.)" There was great joy in the 
limbo of the fathers, on account of the glory hoped for.*) — In 
the third place we have to put the words by which Jesus de- 
clared His tender love to His blessed mother, ordering that 
she mi^ht love John as her son, and John honor her as a 
mother. "Woman, behold thy son ;" and "Behold thy mother." 
The fourth time He opened His mouth, when He cried out 
with a loud voice, saying: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani." This 
was supernatural, as the voice of the dying is naturally extremely 
feeble, especially after great suffering and exhaustion. Ken- 
rick remarks : "This vehement appeal was intended to awake 
our attention to the cause of the mysterious abandonment of 
Christ to His enemies. The Father so far forsook Him as to 

leave Him in their hands, to be tormented and put to death." 

This was not an expression of despair, since it was followed by 
the resignation of His soul into the hands of His Father, but 
in order that the reality and the depth of His sufferings may 
be known. Estius says : He intended to show that His human 
nature was by so many and great pains surrounded that it re- 
ceived no consolation from the divine nature to which it was 
united in one person, for Christ wanted to feel the bitterest 
pains, as a mere man could have felt. Some say, Christ indi- 
cated by this exclamation that all which was foretold of His 
sufferings in ps. 21, was now really fulfilled. The fifth word 
of the dying Saviour was when he said: "I thirst." St. John 
10, 28. And a sponge full of vinegar upon hyssop was offered 
to Him. The passage which was fulfilled hereby, we have in 
ps. 68, v. 22. "They gave me gall for my food, and in my 
thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." The sixth word He 

*) Koerber. Die Katkolische Lehre von der Hoelleufahrt Jesu Christi. 



174 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIEE OF CHRIST. 

spoke when having taken the vinegar he said : "It is consum- 
mated" that is, the work assigned to Him by the Father. The 
seventh and last word was according to the three first gospels : 
"Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit." He pro- 
nounced this crying with a loud voice, which at the moment of 
death was in striking contrast with the ordinary weakness in 
the moment of death. According to St. Mark and St. Luke 
this crying out of the dying Saviour made such an impression 
upon the centurion who stood over against Him and seeing that 
crying out in this manner He had expired, said : Verily this man 
was the Son of God. St. Mathew differs somewhat, ascribing this 
exclamation of the centurion to the earthquake ; but who does 
not see that the centurion could be affected by both, the excla- 
mation of the dying Saviour and the earthquake, and that 
therefore one of the Evangelists supplies the other.*) 



18. — THE MIRACLES ACCOMPANYING THE DEATH OF CHRIST — 
HIS BURIAL AND THE HOUR OF HIS DEATH. 

1. In the three first Gospels we read almost in the very 
same words : " Now from the sixth hour there was darkness 
over the whole earth, until the ninth hour." It is an old con- 
troversy how the expression, "over the whole earth," must be 
understood ; the Greek term, used by the Evangelists, means 
both, earth and land, country. In the first centuries it was 
taken in the full sense of the whole earth, as we infer from 
Tertullian, who says that " at noon the day was withdrawn — 
and you have, he adds speaking to the Romans, this event of 



*) Some give to this centurion the name of Longinus of -whom they say, 
that he embraced the Christian faith and gained the crown of martyrdom. 
(Metaph. Bolland, 18 Mart.) The Latin church, however, commemorates a 
soldier Longinus who pierced the side of the Saviour, as we find it in the 
Roman Martyrol. Mart. 16: Caesareae in Cappadocia, S. Longini, qui latus 
Domini lancea perforasse dicitur. 



DEATH AND BURIAL OF CHRIST. 175 

the world in your archives."*) Julius Africanus refers to a 
certain Thallus, and Eusebius quotes Phlegon of Tralles, a 
chronicler of the second century, who records a most intense 
obscuration of the sun at the 202 Olynipiade, being accompa- 
nied by an earth-quake at the sixth hour of the day. Also 
Origen speaks of this passage of Phlegon, yet adds the re- 
mark, that it is doubtful, whether Phlegon speaks of a natural 
eclipse or a miraculous obscuration of the sun. Some of the 
modern chronologists say, that the eclipse, of which Phlegon 
speaks, occurred on the 24th of November in the year 29 after 
Christ, and hence it cannot be identical with the one of which 
the gospels speak. Another passage which has been referred 
to, is extant in the Acts of the martyr Lucian (312,) ; he says 
to the Pagans: "Consult your annals, and you will find, that 
at the time of Pilate, when Christ suffered, at midday the sun 
was driven off (fugatum) and the day interrupted."*) Still also 
this passage, though referring to the annals and consequently 
giving strong historical testimony for the occurrence of an ex- 
trordinary obscuration of the sun at the death of Christ, does 
not decide the question concerning its extention. Hence this 
point remains doubtful; but what we know with certainty, is 
first that such an obscuration of the sun took place; and sec- 
ondly that it was contrary to the laws of nature, for a natural 
eclipse of the sun was impossible since the passover was celebra- 
ted at full moon. St. Jerom considers it to have been foretold by 
the prophet Amos, ch. 8, v. 9, where we read: "And it shall 
come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that the sun shall go 



*) Tertull Apol. c. 21. Eodem momento dies, medium orbem signante 

sole, subducta est et eura mundi casum in archivis (al. in arcanis) ves- 

tris habetis. 

*) "Cousulite annales vestros et invenietis Pilati temporibns, dum patere- 
turChristus, media die fugatum solem et interruptum diem. ;; Schegg, 
III. 455, 



176 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

down in the mid-day, and I will make the earth quake in the 
day of light.*) 

2. Another prodigy, connected with the death of Christ, 
was the rending of the veil of the temple. "And behold the veil of 
the temple was rent in two, from the top even to the bottom." St. 
Matth. 27, 51, St. Mark. 15, 38, St. Luke, 23, 45. The taberna- 
cle of Moses had threedifFerent veils; in the temple only two were 
used, the third being supplied by its doors. Now which of these 
two veils was rent, the exterior that hid the " Sanctum," or the in- 
terior that separated the most Holy from the "Sanctum." St. Je- 
rom understands it of the exterior veil. St. Clement Alex, and 
the modern authors believe, it was the interior. f) Calmet refers 
to the ep. to the Hebrews ch. 10, to confirm by it this opinion. 
The rending of the veil signifies that the shadows of the law 
are dispelled and the true high-priest has entered into the in- 
nermost of the temple to redeem all men from sin. J) St. 
Matth. continues the passage, referred to, saying: "And the 
earth quaked and the rocks were rent and the graves were 
opened, and many bodies of the saints, who had slept, arose." 
An earthquake without peculiar circumstances, is certainly no 
miracle ; but that it took place just at the very moment, when 
Christ died on the cross, makes it a prodigy. The stupend- 
ous fissures still remain in the rocks on Calvary. §) Consid- 
ering the words following, we learn first that the opening of the 
graves was in connection with the death of Christ, secondly 



*) Huet in his Deraonst. Evang. prop, 3, writes : ''Adrian Gresson re- 
marks in his history of China, that at the very same time an extraordinary 
obscuration of the sun has been observed in those distant regions, and that 
the emperor Confutius was much alarmed by it." Bened. XIV, 1. c, 304. 

f ) This was sixty feet long and extremely thick. 2 Paral. 3, 14. 

X) There is still another interpretation of this prodigy ; the rending of a 
garment was the symbol of horror and detestation, and execration. Hence 
by this rending of the veil may have been indicated that the temple be 
henceforth, desecrated." Shegg, 462. 

£) Kenrick, Cyrill. Hierosol. Catccb. 13. v. 39, "Seitcvvuv (6 yo'Ayo&qg} 
fie^pc vvv. oTTcog 6 lcl Xpiarov al irerpai ~6~e eppayrjcav. 



DEATH AND. BURIAL OF CHRIST. 177 

that the appearing of the saints followed the resurrection of 
Christ ; the time, however, when they rose, coming out of the 
tombs, is not denned, neither the manner in which their rising 
was effected, nor the qualities of the bodies in which they rose.*) 
Some authorities of great weight, Origen, St. Jerom, and St. 
Thomas suppose that these saints rose in a glorified body and 
entered with soul and body into heaven with Christ, anticipat- 
ing in a similar manner, as the blessed Virgin, the universal 
ressurrection. Still others think, that such a privilege was 
only granted to the immaculate Mother of God, and conse- 
quently that the reunion of the souls and bodies of these saints 
was only temporary, perhaps for the forty days of Christ's 
delay on earth after His resurrection, after which, deposing 
their bodies again, their souls only entered with the Redeem- 
er into the glory of heaven. 

3. St. John writes ch. 19, v. 31 : "Then the Jews, because 
it was the parasceve of the sabbath, that the bodies might not 
remain upon the cross on the sabbath — for that was a great sab- 
bath-da/y — besought Pilate, that their legs might be broken, and 
that they might be taken away. v. 33. But after they had 
come to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they 
did not break His legs. v. 31. But one of the soldiers with a 
spear opened His side, and immediately there came out blood 
and water." St. John adds also, that he speaks as an eye- 
witness. Such who were crucified, remained frequently living 
the whole night, sometimes also the next day, yea it is even 
stated that cases occurred when the death did not take place 
before the third day.f) At Rome the corpses, at least of slaves, 
remained on the cross, until they decayed, and the same was 
probably observed by the Romans in the provinces. The Jews, 

*) Kenrick says : "The bodies were reanimated: the graves were thrown 
open at the death of Christ, but the dead arose only after His resurrection, 
since He is the first born of the dead. 

f ) A. Maier, referring to Petron. Sat. c. 11, 1. 112. Justin. Hist. 
12, 7. 

12 



178 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

however, were forbidden by law, (Deut. 21, 23) to let the body 
of any one who was hanged or, what they considered to be the 
same, crucified, upon the tree after sunset, lest the land should 
be defiled. In the present case they had the more to ob- 
serve this, as the following day was the great sabbath, that is, 
the sabbath of the paschal octave. Hence they besought Pi- 
late, that their legs might be broken. With the breaking of 
the legs (crurifragium) was probably joined a coup-de-grace, 
as the breaking of the legs did not necessarily produce death, 
but was rather used as a supplement for the shortened time of 
suffering. This coup-de-grace was, as it seems, applied to Je- 
sus, when one of the soldiers opened with a spear His side. 
Whether it was the right or left side, is not said by the Evan- 
gelist ; since Bede's time it is the common tradition, that it was 
the right side. Still if the soldier, standing in the front of 
the cross, struck with the right hand, it would be more natural 
to think, that it was the left. The flow of blood and water 
was doubtless preternatural, and symbolical of the sacraments, 
as the fathers observe.*) Lymph resembling water with blood 
might flow from the pericardium after death. Modern writers 
justly remark, that St. John states expressly this incident as 
an argument against the Doketists, who denied the physical real- 
ity of the body of Christ. We may add, that any doubt, 
whether Christ was really dead, when taken from the cross, 
must be removed by such a mercy-stroke. 

4. It affords some relief to the reader of the history of the 
passion of Christ, having witnessed so much baseness or weak- 
ness of those concerned in it, to read: "And after these things 
Joseph of Arimathea, because he was a disciple of Jesus, but 
secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might 

*) Bened. XIV. 1, c, says : "De aqua et sanguine qui fluxit ex latere 
Christi, Clemens V. in Vienensi concilio pronuntiavit, non vivo, sed mortuo 
Christo latus esse perfossum indeque sanguinem cum aqua fluxisse. Inno- 
centius III definivit, non incle phlegma, sed veram effluxisse aquam, patrum- 
que omnium consensu miraculo tribuitur." 



DEATH AXD BUlilAL OF CHRIST. 179 

take away the body of Jesus. And Pilate gave leave." St. 
John, ch. 19, v. 38.) St. Mark says: (ch. 15, v. 43,) " Joseph 
of Arimathea, a noble councillor, who was also himself look- 
ing for the kingdom of God, came and went in boldly to Pilate 
and begged the body of Jesus." St. Luke characterizes him 
more, saying: "And behold there was a man named Joseph, 
who was a councillor, (that is, a member of the Sanhedrim) a 
good and just man ; the same had not consented to their coun- 
cil and deeds, of Arimathea, a city of Judea, who also him- 
self looked for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pi- 
late and begged the body of Jesus." St. John adds: "And 
Nicodemus, he who at the first came to Jesus at 
night, came also, bringing a mixture of myrrh and 
aloes, about a hundred pounds." They took therefore the 
body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as 
the manner of the Jews is to bury, (v. 40, 41.) Sin being ex- 
piated, the contumely towards the Redeemer begins to change 
into honor and glory. 

5. Concerning the day on which Christ died, it may be re- 
marked, that according to the ancient and constant tradition, 
as it is first stated by Tertullian, and again repeated by St. 
Augustin and St. Chrysostom, it was the twenty -fifth of Marchj 
the same day on which He was conceived by the immaculate 
Virgin. Henschenius assures us, that besides the printed 
martyrologies he saw in different libraries of Europe twenty- 
four manuscripts of martyrologies which all of them place the 
day of the death of Christ on the 25th of March. There is 
moreover, as Benedict XIY. witnesses, extant to this day the 
Paschal canon of the martyr Hippolyte, bishop of Porto, en- 
graved in a marble plate, of the year 222 A. Ch., which was 
found in Agro Verano 1551, and is now preserved in the Vati- 
can library; in this canon we read : "On the eighth before 
the calends of April is the passion of Christ." Roger Baco 
who asserted that Christ died on the third day of April, was 
accused of error for this opinion, and Tostatus, entertaining a 



180 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST, 

similar opinion, was compelled to withdraw it as being 
erroneous. 

6. Lastly we have to meet the grievious difficulty about the 
hour of the day, at which Christ was crucified and died. 
St. Mark says (ch. 15 v. 15): "And it was the 
third hour, and they crucified Him." And again, v. 
33 : "And when the sixth hour was come, there was 
darkness over the whole earth, until the ninth hour." St. 
Matth. ch. 27, v. 45, agrees with this saying : "Now from 
the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole earth, until 
the ninth hour, and about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with 
aloud voice, saying: "Eli, Eli," etc. But St. John 
seems to contradict most positively both of them, for in ch. 
19, v, 14 we read : "And it was the parasceve of the pass- 
over, about the sixth hour, and he (Pilate) saith to the Jews : 
"Behold your King." Some manuscripts ef great antiquity*) 
have indeed a different reading ; they have "about the third 
hour." Still by far the greater number of the manuscripts 
and the most reliable of them have the reading of the received 
text wherefore among the modern critics Patritius stands nearly 
alone, asserting that the text of St. John, as it is extant, has 
been occasioned by a mistake of the copyists, having miswrit- 
ten stigma, in uncial writing like F (denoting 6) for I 7 , (gama, 
denoting 3). He thinks there is no other way to solve the 
difficulty ;f) and certainly, the common solution of it, by re- 



*) The Codex Cantabrigiensis, also called Beza's Codex, of the fifth or sixth 
century, marked by the letter <: D ;" then the manuscripts L. X. of the 
eight or tenth century, moreover the Codices 72, 88, 123, 151, have the read- 
ing "the third hour ;" but in Codex D it is a correction of the original text 
by a later hand. The Chronic. Alex, has the same reading, referring to ex- 
act manuscripts and especially to one preserved at Ephesus said to be the 
autograph of St. John. 

f) Patrit. coment. II. 434. The same he says in a later commentary to 
St. John: "Quo hanc difficultatem removeas una duntaxat neque alia 
praeter hanc via patet ut dicamus librariorum errore in alterutro evan- 
gelio notas .Fet F alteram cum altera esse commutatas. p. 218. 



DEATH AND BURIAL OF CHRIST. 181 

ferring to a division of the day into four parts, the prime, 
tierce, sexta andnona, so that, since the sexta follows after the 
tierce, an event which took place at the tierce, could be called 
also to have occurred about the sexta, this solution, we say, 
seems not satisfactory. But by the learned L. Hug another 
explanation has been tried, which obtained the approbation of 
the modern critics. Hug says, St. John uses the Roman di- 
vision of the day-time, beginning the day at midnight, so that 
the sixth hour was after sunrise, whilst St. Mark and St. 
Matth. count the hours according to the customs of the Jews 
from the rising of the sun. He proves from Josephus FL, 
that both ways of counting the hours were used by the Jews. 
St. John, in accordance w T ith the other evangelists, states ch. 
18, 28 : "Then they led Jesus from Caiphas to the hall of 
the governor. And it was morning" in Greek l h ut which sig- 
nifies the fourth watch of the night, lasting from three o'clock 
(as we say) after midnight until day-break. It was conse- 
quently very early, perhaps about five o'clock in the morning, 
when Jesus was brought the first time to Pilate. The reason 
for such an early transaction of the trial was, no doubt, the 
approaching easter-sabbath. Moreover it is quite visible in 
the proceeding, as described by the Evangelists, that all was 
hurried on. Pilate struggled to get rid as quickly as possible of 
a case, that caused so much disturbance on a festival day, on 
which great crowds were present in Jerusalem. The Jews 
pressed on fearing, lest their wicked design might be frustrated 
by any delay. The leading of Christ to Herod, and back 
again could neither take much time. Hence all which we 
read of the trial of Christ before Pilate, could be finished be- 
fore seven o'clock in the morning, that is, about the sixth 
hour. The necessary preparation for the execution of the sen- 
tence, perhaps the more so, as two criminals were sentenced 
to suffer death at the same time with the innocent Lamb of 
God, and the leading out through the streets of Jerusalem to 
mount Calvary could well take two hours more, so that it was, 



182 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHKIST. 

as St. Mark says, the third hour, according to the Hebrew cal- 
culation, or the ninth hour of the morning, when they cruci- 
fied Him. Christ had suffered, according to this explanation, 
already three hours on the cross, when at the sixth hour there 
was darkness over the whole earth, and as He suffered accord- 
ing to St. Matth., after the darkness, three hours longer, un- 
til the ninth hour, according to the Jewish counting of the 
hours, or until three o'clock in the afternoon, it follows, that 
the whole time during which Christ suffered on the cross for 
the sins of the world, comprises not less than six hours.*) We 
beg the reader to compare carefully for himself the four gos- 
pels, and we trust that this exposition will appear to him per- 
fectly justified. 

5. "The next day, which followed the day of preparation," 
that is, on the sabbath, the chief-priests and the Pharisees 
came together to Pilate, in order to have the sepulchre 
guarded, and having obtained their request, they sealed the 
stone of the sepulchre and set the guards. Some think, this took 
place already on friday evening, as the sabbath commenced 
with sun-set ; f) still, considering the words of the Evangelist, 
the most obvious sense of them seems to be against such an 
interpretation. Hence, we understand by the "next day," the 
morning of the next day, when the relentless enemies of Christ, 
remembering the circulating report of His foretold resurrec- 
tion, placed the guard at the sepulchre. When doing so, thej 
doubtless examined it to be sure that the body was there ; hence 
the corroboration of Christ's resurrection by this precaution 
remains the same, though as we understand it, this was done a 
day after the burial. 



*) A. Maier, 1. c. Schegg, 1. c. 
f) Kenrick. Matth., 27, 62. 



THE RESURRECTION. 183 

19. — THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 

1. "At the end of the Sabbath, when it began to dawn to- 
wards the first day of the week, some pious women went to the 
grave, to embalm the body," not having had an opportunity to 
do it before the burial, as it was commonly done, on account 
of the haste of the same, ffhe first difficulty in comparing the 
four gospels on the glorious part of the history of our Savior, 
concerns the time when these pious women went to the grave. 
St. Matth. gives it in the foregoing terms. St. Mark says : 

"And when the sabbath was past, they brought sweet spices, 

and very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they 

came to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen." St. Luke: 

"And on the first day of the week, very early in the morning 

and St. John : ' And on the first day of the week, when it was 

yet dark." St. Augustin says, that all the different expres- 
sions signify the same hour ; for when the day begins to dawn, 
there remains yet some darkness, which is dispelled success- 
ively by degrees, the light increasing. Others say that the 
time when they started and the time when they came to the 
grave, must be distinguished. St. Mark seems to make such 
a distinction. 

2. On the day of the resurrection, five apparitions of 
Christ are mentioned in the gospels. The first was made to 
Magdalen, at the sepulchre; the second to the women, return- 
ing from the grave ; the third to Peter, the fourth to the dis- 
ciples going to Emaus, and the fifth to the apostles and others, 
assembled in Jerusalem, Thomas being absent. Besides these 
apparitions, mentioned in the gospels, it is an ancient tradi- 
tion,*) that Christ appeared first of all to his blessed Mother. 
Though Estius is much opposed to those who say, that there- 
occurred an apparition before the one made to Magdalen, since 

*) St. Ambros, leb. 3 de Virginibus. "Vidit Maria (Virgo) resurrec- 
tion em Domini et prima vidit et credidit." Baronius ?.d ann. 34. \ 183. 



184 THE OUTLINES OE THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

it is called expressly the first by St. Mark ; nevertheless we 
subscribe with Baronius to the stated tradition, saying, that the 
apparition made to Magdalen, is the first of those mentioned in 
the gospels, but not absolutely the first of all. 

3. There is another discrepancy between St. Matth. and St. 
Mark, on one side, and St. Luke and St. John, on the other, 
in regard to the angels that appeared to the women. The two 
first Evangelists mention only one, and the two others speak 
of two. The common answer to this is, that St. Matth. and 
St. Mark do by no means contradict the other gospels, as they 
do not say, that it was only one, but they are not so exact in 
regard to the detail, confining themselves to record an 
angelic apparition, and what was said to the women on the 
occasion. A greater difficulty exists concerning the two first 
apparitions in general, between the synoptic gospels and St. 
John ; for the former relate, that Mary Magdalen and some 
other women, after they were come to the sepulchre, found 
the stone rolled away, and an angel appeared to them, announ- 
cing the resurrection of Christ. But St. John states that 
Mary Magdalen, when she had seen the stone removed, ran 
back to Peter and John and told them : " They have taken 
away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where 
they have laid Him," which, of course, she would not have said 
if she had seen the angel at the grave. But may it not be that 
when Mary Magdalen came to the grave and entered it with 
the other women, they saw at first no angel ? She, seeing the 
grave empty, ran in great, haste back to the apostles, whilst 
the other women remained in or about the sepulchre where 
•they saw at last two angels by whom they received the com- 
mand to announce the resurrection to the disciples : then they 
left the place in great haste. In the meantime Peter and John 
came to the grave and Mary Magdalen with them. The apos- 
tles entered the grave, but saw nothing and returned. Mag- 
dalen, full of love and desire, lingered weeping about the sa- 
cred spot; and when she stooped down and looked again into 



THE RESURRECTION. 185 

the sepulchre, she saw two angels in white, who said : Why art 
thou weeping ? Then turning herself, she saw the Lord, but 
recognized Him not, until He said: "Mary." This was the 
first apparition of the Lord, risen from the dead. St. Mark, 16, 
9. After this, the Lord appeared to the other women, return- 
ing home by another way than Peter and John came, so that 
they did not meet them. Matth., 28, 9. We know there re- 
mains still some discrepancy unsolved, especially comparing 
the narrative of St. Luke ; for according to him one might 
think that Mary Magdalen went back with the other women 
to the disciples ; for having mentioned the apparition of the 
angels, he continues : "And it was Mary Magdalen and Joanna 
and Mary the mother of James, and the others with them, who 
told these things to the apostles. And these words seemed to 
them as idle tales ; and they did not believe them. But Peter 
rising up ran to the sepulchre, and stooping down he saw the 
linen clothes lying by themselves, and he returned, wondering 
in himself at what had happened." But who does not see that 
St. Luke's principal intention is to show how tardy the apos- 
tles were to believe the fact of the resurrection. This is con- 
firmed hj that which the two disciples going to Emmaus said, 
namely : "Yea, and certain women also of our company amazed 
us, who before it was light were at the sepulchre. And not 
finding His body, came, saying that they had also seen a vision 
of angels, who say that He is alive. And some of our people 
went to the sepulchre, and found it so as the women had said; 
but Him tliey found not.'" St. Luke, therefore, by his narra- 
tive, seems to intend to convey the impression to the reader, 
that the apostles did not believe, until they saw the Lord Him- 
self. 

4. The third apparition, made to St. Peter, is mentioned by 
Luke ch. 24, 34, and again by St. Paul in the 1st ep., to the 
Corinth, ch. 15, 5. The fourth is shortly stated by St. Mark, 
ch. 16, 12, saying : "And after that He appeared in a differ- 
ent form, to two of them walking, as they were going into the 



I 

186 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

country. And they going, told it to the rest." St. Luke 
describes the same in a minute detail in ch. 24. The fifth is 
again recorded by S$. Luke ch. 24, and by St. John ch. 20, 
also probably by St. Mark ch. 16, v. 14. For whilst the two 
disciples, who had returned from Emmaus, told what things oc- 
curred in the way and how they knew Him in the breaking of 
bread, Jesus stood in the midst of them and shows them not 
only His hands and feet, but also eats in their presence," to con- 
vince them that He is in all reality before them. On this oc- 
casion the Sacrament of penance was instituted. Remarka- 
ble it is that St. Luke and St. Mark, as it appears, connect im- 
mediately with this apparition the ascension of the Lord. St. 
Matthew also mentions only one apparition of those, that 
were made to the apostles, and not that which took place in 
Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection, but another one af- 
terwards in Galilee, without mentioning at all the ascension, 
still adding a similar command of the Lord to the apostles, as 
we read in St. Mark and St. Luke, immediately as one might 
think before the ascension.*) By this we may see, how the 
Evangelists connected sometimes events, distant in time, with- 
out indicating this distance. 

5. St. John adds to the foregoing apparitions two more ; one 
of them took place at Jerusalem eight days after the resurrec- 
tion, converting the unbelief of St. Thomas, (St. John ch. 20,) 
the other occurred in Galilee, and is related at large by St. 
John in ch. 21. In v. 14, the remark is added: "This is now 
the third time, that Jesus was manifested to His disciples after 
He was risen from the dead." This we may understand in a 
twofold manner, either that we take the expression "the third 
time," in the sence of "the third day," on which He appeared, 
namely on the day of the resurection, then eight days after, 
and now on this occasion in Galilee ; or that it was the third 
apparition to the principal apostles, and the greater number of 



*) See further on below n. 6, note 6. 



THE RESURRECTION. 187 

them, as at one apparation all apostles were present, except 
Thomas, at the other all of them without exception, and at the 
third at least seven of them ; for thus %we read ch. 21, v. 2: 
" There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas who is called 
Didymus and Nathaniel who was of Cana in Galilee, and the 
sons of Zebedee, John and James, and two others of His 
disciples."*) In Matth. ch, 26, v. 32, Christ foretelling His 
death and resurrection, added the promise : "But after I shall 
be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee." The same 
was repeated by the angels at the sepulchre. To this that 
which we read of His apparition at Jerusalem and in Emmaus, 
is no contradiction ; for it was not said, that He would not ap- 
pear at any other place ;t) still it seems that Galilee was the 
place appointed for an apparition not only to the apostles but 
to His disciples in general, which seems confirmed by the fol- 
lowing apparition. 

6. St. Matth. relates ch. 28, v. 16. "And the eleven disci- 
ples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had ap- 
pointed to them. And seeing Him, they adored ; but some 
doubted." St. Paul mentions in the first ep. to the Corinth., 
15, 6 : "Then was He seen by more than five hundred breth- 
ren at once, of whom many remain until this present, and some 
are fallen asleep." This apparition is considered by the inter- 
preters to be identical with the foregoing, or if not, it most 
probably took place also in Galilee. There is one apparition 
more mentioned by St. Paul, different from all the foregoing ; 
in the chapter referred to he writes : "After that He was 
seen by James." From the Act. ch. 1, v. 3, we may conclude, 
that not all apparitions of the risen Saviour are recorded in 
the Scripture. The last time He appeared on the day of His 
ascension. (Act. 1.) The apostles had returned from Galilee 

*) Kenrick to St. John 21, 14. 

f) St. Ambros: "Non est promissi transgressio, sed potius festinata ex 
benignitate impletio." 



188 THE OUTLINES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 

to Jerusalem, probably by the command of the Lord ; when 
they were at table, He appeared, and eating with them, He 
commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for 
the promise of the Father, that is, the Holy Ghost," (Act. 1.) 
and then, as we read, (Luke, ch. 24,) He led them out as far 
as Bethania, or what is the same, to the mount Olivet,*) 
(Act. 1) at the foot of which Bethania is situated, and lifting 
up His hands, He blessed them; and it came to pass, whilst He 
blessed them, He departed from them, and He was carried up 
to heaven, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. If the 
ancient tradition must be believed, that Christ died on the 
twenty-fifth of March, it was then the fifth of May, when He 
returned gloriously to the Father. It is an ancient tradition, 
testified up to the times of St. Jerom and St. Augustin, that He 
impressed His footsteps at the sacred spot of His ascension. 
To the present day on mount Olivet, a stone is shown, in which 
a footstep, three fingers deep, is perceived. Whatever may be 
the truth of this tradition, we fall down and kiss in spirit all 
the footsteps which He, the King of eternal glory, has made 
in this vale of tears for our sakes. 



*) Tischendorf in his " Aus dern heiligen Lande," denies that the two 
statements " as far as Bethania" and " to the mount Olivet," can be under- 
stood as identical ; moieover he says : the remark in the Acts of the Ap. ch. 
1. v. 12, that the distance from Jerusalem was a sabbath day's journey, 
agrees well with mount Olivet, but not with Bethania. Hence he considers 
the clause, (Luke 24, 31,) "And He was carried up to Heaven," to be an ad- 
dition, though of a very ancient date. The Codex Sinaiticus, the manuscript 
D. of Cambridge, and five Latin documents, together with St. Augustin, are 
against the genuineness of said passage. In the 7th edition of his text, the 
same author rejects also the last verses of the gospel of St. Mark, and comes 
to the conclusion that the ascension of the Lord is only mentioned in the Acts, 
but in none of the gospels, p. 307. 



PART II, 



THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS 

CORROBORATED; THE CORRECTNESS 

AND INSPIRED CHARACTER 

OF THE SACRED TEXT. 



I. — The Historical Credibility of the Gospels Corroborated by 
Profane History. 

1. We have not neglected to mark out in our foregoing dis- 
cussions, the principal points by which the sacred history is 
linked to the profane history, both of the Roman empire and 
of the Jewish nation. We had therefore occasion to speak of 
two emperors, of Augustus and Tiberius, and of two Roman 
procurators, Quirinus and Pilatus. We saw that the dates and 
facts, which are stated in the gospels of these historical persona- 
ges, are not contradicted, but rather confirmed by documents of 
the Roman history. The same we may say in regard to the politi- 
cal history of the Jews. Herod, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Phil- 
lipus, the high-priests, Annas and Caiphas, are not only repre- 
sented by profane history in accordance with the gospels to 
have been at that time when Augustus and Tiberius occupied 



190 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

the imperial power, the rulers of the Jewish nation, but they 
are also characterized by the profane historian in a similar 
light, as we perceive it in the short notices contained in the 
gospels. To show this still more, and to confirm hereby the evan- 
gelical history, we think it will not be out of place to add here 
a short synopsis of the political history of the Jews at the 
time of Christ. The historian of the Jews is Josephus, surnamed 
Flavius.*) He was born at Jerusalem about 37 A. Ch.: his 
father, Matthias, was a Jewish Priest : in his nineteenth year 
he joined the party of the Pharisees. In the year 63 A. Ch., 
in his twenty-sixth year, he went to Rome to assist some Jew- 
ish priests, who were sent in chains thither by the Roman pro- 
curator, Felix. Having succeeded in his design, he returned 
to Jerusalem, where he was elected by the Sanhedrim as 
Praetor of Galilee. At the beginning of the Jewish war 
against the Romans he was commander of the Jewish army. 
Having shown great courage in defending his position against 
Vespasian, he became at last by treason the captive of the Ro- 
mans, but gained the favor of Vespasian, from whom, to ex- 
press his gratitude, he accepted the surname "Flavius." At 
the siege of Jerusalem and its destruction he was present on 
the side of the Romans, and endeavored to persuade the zeal- 
ots to surrender the city, that the temple might be preserved. 
After the awful catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem, he went 
to Rome, where, engaging the favor of the emperor and his 
sons, he spent the rest of his life in his literary labors. We 
have from him : 1) a history of the Jewish war ; 2) the Jewish 
Antiquities ; 3) two books against Apion, a grammarian of 
Alexandria ; 4) a treatise on the " Self-governing Reason"; 5) 
a short Autobiography. f) 

*) Some say : Flavius Josephus ; others. Josephus Flavius. 

f) The reason that there is no other historian besides Josephus who gives 
testimony for the history of the Gospels, is simply this, that there is no other 
historian of the Jews known. Philo was no historian, and lived in Egypt, 
not in Palestine. The Greek and Roman Historians, as Strabo complains of 



PROFANE HISTORY OF THE TIME. 191 

2. From this historian we know that the Hasmonean dynas- 
ty, by which the Jewish nation had recovered its independency 
from any foreign sway, soon degenerated. Judas Aristobulus 
(106 before Christ.) the grand-son of Simon, the Macchabean, 
Was a real monster of a tyrant. His brother, Alexander Jan- 
naeus (105 — 78) was not much better ; he was the fiercest ene- 
my of the Pharisees, but on his death-bed he advised his wife, 
Alexandra, to get reconciled to this powerful party. Alexan- 
dra ruled after him from 78-69. After her death (69) the two 
sons of Jannaeus and Alexandra, Aristobulus and Hyrkanus 
(III) contended, one against the other, for succession in power. 
Hyrkanus, by nature of a mild disposition, would have been 
satisfied with the office of high-priest, ceding the throne to his 
brother ; yea. he even showed himself willing to give up also 
the priestly office for the sake of peace ; but he was instigated 
by Antipater, the procurator of Idumea, to resist by a fratrici- 
dal war. Thus it came that the Romans, already in possession 
of Syria, found an occasion to interfere. Pompeius decided 
(63) in favor of Hyrkanus, who consequently became the ruler 
of the Jews, with the title of an ethnarch, yet depending on 
the Romans. Aristobulus, with his two sons, Alexander and 
Antigonus, were sent to Rome ; but one of them, Alexander, 
escaped on the way thither, and took up arms against Hyrka- 
nus, his uncle, who, asking again the protection of the Roman 



in his geography, (III. 116.) were without any exact knowledge of the histo- 
ry of the oriental nations in general, and especially of the Jews, being so 
much despised and hated by them. Hence it is not surprising that Christ, 
who came in no direct contact with the occidental nations, is scarcely ever 
mentioned by their historians of that age. There existed, however, one his- 
torical document of Christ, of high importance in the first centuries, namely. 
the Acts of Pilate on Jesus, sent by the governor to the emperor Tiberius. 
St. Justin M., Tertullian. Eusebias, Chrysostom. Orosius and others refer to 
this document with full confidence, in their controversies with the pagans, 
whence we may safely conclude that it was genuine : but these Acts were 
lost afterwards, for those preserved under the same title seem to be supposi- 
tions. Scholz. Einleitung in d. hi. Sch. B. I, p. 697. 



192 TRUTHFULNESS OP THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

pro-consul Gabinius of Syria, lost nearly all political power. 
J. Cesar restored to him, some time afterwards his former dig- 
nity, but under the condition that he accepted the Idumean 
Antipater as procurator (47) for the political administration of 
the country. This Antipater usurped soon all power, and ap^ 
pointed by himself his two sons, Phasael and Herod, the first 
at Jerusalem and the second in Galilee, as procurators. At 
that time Aristobulus, and his younger son Antigonus escaped 
from their captivity in Rome, and having returned to Judea, 
renewed the war against Hyrkanus ; but Gabinius, the Roman 
pro-consul of Syria, defeated and sent them again to Rome. 
Two years after, (41) Phasael and Herod were confirmed Te- 
trarchs of Judea by the Roman Triumvir Antonius. Antigo- 
nus, however, succeeded, by the assistance of the Parthians to 
recover for a short time the throne of his ancestors ; but Her- 
od, supported by the Romans, besieged and took Jerusalem, 
37 bef. Ch. Antigonus, the last of the Hasmonean dynasty^ 
was put to death publicly at Antioch like a criminal, and 
Herod assumed, with the approbation of the Roman Senate, the 
title of King of Judea. The power which he had obtained by 
his crafty submission to the Romans, he maintained by cruelty. 
All the adherents of Antigonus, and especially the members of 
the Sanhedrim, only two excepted, were put to death. Hyr- 
canus, whose procurator Antipater, Herod's father had been, 
was invited to come to Jerusalem from Babylon, whither he 
had retired during the civil war, but soon he was also killed, 
Mariamne, his own wife, suspected by him, since she was of the 
family of the Hasmoneans, was likewise put to death, with her 
two sons Alexander and Aristobulus. His own brother, Phe- 
roras, and Antipater, another son by his wife Doris, experi- 
enced the same fate. The people was oppressed by a heavy 
taxation and public works which he undertook. In the 18th 
year of his reign, about 15 or 16 j^ears before the birth of 
Christ, in order to reconcile the much exasperated people some- 
what, he commenced to renovate or rather rebuild the temple ; 



„ PROFANE HISTORY OF THE TIME. 193 

but nearly at the same time he built also a magnificent temple 
to Apollo at Rhoclus. Though he was circumcised and observed 
apparently the Mosaical law, he made no difficulty about sacri- 
ficing to the Roman gods, being at Rome. Whilst he was a 
tyrant against all under his sway, he became always more de- 
pendent on the Romans. In the cruel proceedings against his 
own children he was restrained by the Roman emperor Augus- 
tus, and when he died, his will was subjected to the confirmation 
of the same emperor. 

3. After his death, Augustus hesitated for a while to con- 
firm his last disposition concerning the succession of his three 
sons, of whom he designed Archelaus to be his successor in 
Judea, Herod Antipas in Galilee and Perea, and Philippu 
in the other parts of his kingdom. Archelaus found it neces- 
sary to come to Rome ; but at the same time a deputation of 
fifty Jews appeared before the emperor, to beseech him for the 
grant of a free administration, that is, without any ruler from 
the family of Herod. Augustus refused, therefore, to give to 
Archelaus the title of a King, as his father had, but sent him 
back as an ethnarch of Judea, Idumea and Samaria. In the 
year 759 U. C, the Jews renewing their charges against him, 
he was deposed and sent into exile to Vienne in Gaul. Judea 
and Samaria were united with the province of Syria, which 
was administrated at that time by Quirinus, a man of high 
reputation according to Tacitus*) and Josephus Fl.f) He took 
up another census in Judea, on which occasion Josephus men- 
tions, that before this another description had been made. 
The taxation, connected with this census, took place without 
great difficulty ;j) yet nevertheless the Roman tax-gatherers, 
introduced about this time, were universally hated hj the peo- 



*) Tacit. Ann. Ill, c. 1. 

f) Jos. Fl. Antiq. XVIII, 1. 1. 

X) Jos. Fl. Antiq. XVIII, 1, 1. He remarks that this second census passed 
off quietly, whilst on a former occasion the very name of a census caused 
great excitement. 

13 



194 TRUTHFULNESS OP THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

pie ; the collection of tolls and taxes was considered to be a 
cursed business. With Quirinus, the procurator of Syria, had 
arrived at the same time Coponius to be the special procurator 
of Judea, yet subordinate to the first. This Goponius was 
succeeded by Marcus Ambivius, then by Annius Rufus, Vale- 
rius Gratus, and finally Pontius Pilatus. Even the high- 
priests were entirely dependent on these governors : they were 
appointed and deposed according to their will. Pontius Pilate 
administrated Judea for ten years, during which period fre- 
quent disturbances occurred, because this governor had not 
always the proper regard for the religion of the Jews. 

4. Whilst Judea with Samaria was under the direct admin- 
istration of the Romans, Galilee, Perea and the other parts 
of the holy land continued to be under the two other sons of 
Herod, namely Herod Antipas and Philippus. The first was 
married to the daughter of the Arabian King Aretas, but when 
he was in Rome, he conceived a passion for Herodias, the wife 
of another son of Herod, called Herod Philippus*) who lived 
there as a private man. This woman was ready to follow him, un- 
der the condition, that he dismisses his former wife, the daugh- 
ter of Aretas. This caused a war with the Arabian King 
which lasted several years. Josephus Fl. mentions also John 
the Baptist and his execution. f) The best, or at least the 
most quiet of the sons of Herod seems to have been Philippus 
II, the tetrarch of Batanea and Iturea. He is only once men- 
tioned in the gospel, namely in the 3d chapter of St. Luke ; 
his usual residence was probably in Cesarea Philippi at the foot 
of the Libanon and in Bethsaida (Julias) on the north eastern 
shore of the lake Genesareth. He died in the 37th year of his 
reign, in the last of Tiberius, after Herod Antipas had been 
also sent to Gaul into exile, like his brother Archelaus. 



*) This Philippus is, therefore, not the tetrarch of Batanea. 

f ) Antiq. XVIII, c. 5. 2. He remarks that when Herod suffered a defeat 
in this war against Aretas, the people considered it to be a just punishment 
of God for having put to death John, called the Baptist. 



PROPANE IILSTORY OF THE TIME. 195 

5. Two sects or parties, called the Pharisees and Sadducees, 
play a great part in the history of the Jews at the time of 
Christ. Everybody knows how frequently the gospels speak 
of them, especially of the first. The Pharisees are thoroughly 
characterized in the 23d chapter of St. Matthew. Profane 
history speaks of them in a similar way. The origin of these 
parties dates back to the time even before the w T ar of the 
Macchabeans against the enemies of the Jewish religion. To 
preserve the law and to impress it deeply in the heart of the 
nation, there were schools erected, not long after the Babylon- 
ish captivity, for this purpose through the whole country ; they 
were not strictly of a public character, but private undertakings, 
yet the Sanhedrim took them under its protection and control ; 
from this august assembly the permission to teach or to erect 
a school had to be obtained, and the teachers, if the soundness 
of their doctrine was doubted, had to give an account of it before 
the high council. It was natural that these teachers under such a 
control, being tied together by the same interest, grew up in a 
short time to a large party or community within the nation. 
Still, as it seems, soon a great division between them followed; 
one part as it is stated, misinterpreted a sentence of Simon the 
Just who was at the head of the Sanhedrim from 291 — 260 
before Christ, in such a manner that they denied the immortali- 
ty of the soul, and resurrection of the body, also the existence 
of angels, the divine providence and all higher influence on 
the will of man.*) Moreover they rejected all traditions and 
as it is said by St. Jerom, all the holy books, except the penta- 
teuch.f) Confining in this manner the human existence to 

*) Jos. Fl. Bell. Jud. 2. 18 24. "Providentiam omnino negant ac ponunt 
Deum extra agendum aliquid malum vel non agendum ; dicunt in kominuni 
arbitrio positum esse et bonum et malum, et accedere ad alterutrum juxta 
scientiam cuique datam." 

f ) The last point is denied by A. Maier and others, saying that St. Jerom 
was erroneously led to such a supposition by the refutation of the Sadducees 
from a passage of the Pentateuch in Matt. 22. 23. See also Scholtz, Theo- 
logie des A. B. p. 93. 



196 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

this present life, the followers of this doctrine entertained Ep- 
icurean principles of morals, and showed a great carelessness, 
if in sacred offices, in the observation of the ceremonies ; as 
judges, they were merciless, and as scholars, extremely dispu- 
tatious. The adherents of this party were never very numer- 
ous, but consisted principally of the rich and higher class of 
the Jews, wherefore they succeeded sometimes in becoming 
members of the Sanhedrim and even to have the Jewish high- 
priest taken from among them.*) Towards the end of the 
Jewish commonwealth they were excluded from the nation, f ) 
as, indeed, they had well deserved. They were called Sadchi- 
cees, either from one of the founders of this doctrine or from 
the Hebrew word Zadik, just, boasting, as the unbelievers of 
all ages, with their outside justice. Opposed to these scribes 
were the orthodox teachers of the people who were named 
Pharisees.*) They cannot be properly called a religious sect, 
for they did not deviate from the common religious belief of the 
people, but they formed a caste of expounders of the law ac- 
cording to principles by which, whilst the dead letter of the law 
was most carefully preserved, the spirit of it was entirely ex- 
tinguished. By the tradition they made, as they themselves 
used to say, a fence around the law, to protect it. According 
to two great masters, Schamai and Hillel, they were more or 
less rigorous in their opinions ; the followers of Hillel were 
the milder. Haughtiness, hypocrisy and ambition were their 
principal vices, following from their position among the people. 
They expected most ardently the Messiah, but one who would in- 
terpret the law, as they did, and establish it in its full power, re- 
storing at the same time again the political independency of the na- 

*) Jos. Fl. ant iq. XIII. 20, 6, XVIII .1 3, XX, 9. 2. 8, 8. act. apost. ch. 
23, 6. 

f) A. Maier. Encycl. cler Kathol. Theologie. 

%) There are different explanations of the word Pharisee; some interpret 
it as "expounders of the law;" others as "seperated, selected from the com- 
mon people. ; ' 



PROFANE HISTORY OF THE TIME. 197 

tion. Besides these two parties we find a third one mentioned in 
profane history, the Essenes or Esseans. Scripture never 
mentions them ; the cause of it is certainly nothing else, than 
that the adherents of this set led a retired life, partly in Judea 
on the west side of the Dead sea, partly in Egypt on the 
Mareotic lake near Alexandria.*) Hence they seem never to 
have come in any contact neither with Christ, nor with the 
Apostles afterwards, and therefore they are never spoken of 
in the New Testament. Concluding these short historical remarks, 
we think it proper to refer also to the much disputed passage 
in the Antiquities of Josephus,f) where he speaks of Jesus of 
Nazareth, calling him a wise man, who performed many mirac- 
ulous works, and was a teacher of such as were inclined to 
hear the truth; who gained many followers among the Jews 
and Gentiles ; who was the Messiah, and though he was cruci- 
fied by Pilate, was not deserted by those who had loved Him 
from the beginning. On the third day He appeared to them 
again, as it was foretold by the prophets. This passage has 
been quoted from Jos. FL, first, as we know, by Eusebius in 
two of his works, in his Historia eccl. I, 11, and again in his 
Demonstratio evangel. Ill, 5 ; after him we find it again refer- 
ed to by St. Jerom, Sozomenus, Isidor of Pelusium.J) Its 
genuineness was not called into question before the end of the 
sixteenth century ; the first who did so were H. Gilfanius and 
L. Osiander, followed afterwards by other critics. The prin- 



*) Some say that the sect living on the east side in Perea and Nabatea, 
■was different from the Essenes ; they were called Ossenes or Osseans. Ac- 
cording to Doellinger, the Essenes differed again from the Therapeutes : the 
first attended to agriculture, and lived, though in a separate manner, among 
other people, whilst the latter retired into the solitude and, neglecting the 
practical life, gave themselves entirely up to a peculiar, as it seems, Pytha- 
gorean ascetism — Doellinger Heidenth. Judenth. p. 759. 

f) Jos. Fl. Antiq. XVIII, 3, 3. 

X) To these writers we may add St. Ambrose, "de excid. urbis Hieros. II 
Paifinus.hist.eccl.III, 11. Suidas Lexic. sub voce Josepos. Nicephorus 
hist. eccl. I, 39. 



198 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATE. 

cipal reasons against the passage are : 1) That no ecclesiasti- 
cal writer before Eusebius ever used this passage. On the contrary 
Origen, c. Gels. I, p. 23, speaking of Josephus expressly says, 
that he did not believe in Jesus as Christ. 2) That the pas- 
sage interrupts somewhat the connection of the text, where it 
is inserted. 3) That only a christian could speak in such 
terms of Jesus. But the passage has found also many defend- 
ers up to this very day : They sayl) all manuscripts, dating 
back to the time of Eusebius, contain these sentences. 2) The 
number of the Christians at the time of Josephus was already 
too large for him to be entirely silent on them, which would 
be the fact, if the disputed passages were not genuine. 3) It 
is not credible, that Josephus, who speaks of John the Bap- 
tist, and of James the Minor, should not even mention the 
name of Jesus. 4) The passage could be written by one who 
did not believe in Jesus, if we understand it in that sense, 
that Josephus speaks as an historian, not giving his opinion, 
but shortly stating the principal facts of the life of Jesus, as 
they were believed by the christians. This much we can ex- 
pect of Josephus, since he was by no means a rigorous Jew, 
but much inclined to an electicism in religion;*) Other critics 
however, as Olshausen, Gieseler, etc., think, that the passage, 
genuine in its substance, has been enlarged by the christian 
copyists; they reduce it to the following sentences : "At the 
same time was Jesus, a wise man, a performer of extraordinary 
works, and He drew after Him many followers, both of the 
Jews and the Gentiles. And though by the envy of our chief- 
men Pilate had condemned Him to the cross, those who 
loved Him from the beginning, persevered : to this day those 
who are called christians from Him, continue to exist." Yet 



*) A. Scholz, referring to Heinichen excurs. I, ad Euseb. hist, eccl., to 
Boclimert de testim. Fl. Josephi, Lips. 1823., T.M. Strettenberg de testim. 
de Jesu Ch. Fl. Joseph, dissert. Lundae 1824, says, that the passage in Fl. 
Josephus has been called in question without a just reason — Einleitungin d. 
hi. Sch. B. I. p. 696. 



THE MOST RELIABLE TEXT. 199 

whatsoever may be the value of this passage^ it will not in the 
main lesfcen the confirmation, that the historical credibility of 
the gospel receives by the testimony of Josephus. We see 
that the political situation of the Jews and the character of 

in Dover at that time, as described by this historian, 
agree perfectly with what we read in the gospels; we have 
therefore a part of the statements of the sacred writers, cor- 

:ed by a witness who is in every way perfectly indepen- 
dent from the former.*) 



. — VI hie Text of the G-ospeh. 

1. Having shown the authenticity and historical credibility 
of the four gospels, considering them in the whole, we must 
now enter on a question in near connection with the foregoing. 
tie gospel- do not only contain facts of the most extraor- 
dinary hind, but also the most sublime doctrine which is the 
object of the christian faith, it is of paramount importance to 
know how it stands with the original text of these documents 
in ail their parts. Have we yet in our printed testaments the 
very same text, as it came from the hands of the inspired 
writers ? Has during so many centuries nothing been changed 
and spoiled, so that we can rely on the wording of the text to 
draw safe conclusions from it in all points of doctrine ? This 
is a very difficult, intricate question in all its details, but we 
hope, without dwelling too long on this subject, to make it pos- 



f) There are some other special facts corroborated by Fl. Josephus which 
are in a near connection with the history of the gospels, as they are related 
in the Acts of the Apostles, -written by St. Luke. f. ex. the tragic death of 
Agrippa, the famine under the emperor Claudius, the rebellion of 
Theudas. Judas Gaulonites and a certain Egyptian Jew under Lysias. the 
•expulsion of the Jews irom Rome under Claudius — Scholz, 1. c. p. 657. 



200 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

sible to the reader, to judge for himself which of the various 
texts extant is the most correct and reliable. 

2.) We cannot expect that the autographs of the sacred 
writers have been preserved to this time ; this could have been 
scarcely possible without a miracle ; and for this there was no 
necessity. They were, as the critics think, not written on 
parchment, but on Egyptian paper, fabricated at that 
time of an Egyptian reed or bulrush, which was not of a very 
durable quality* ;) they were frequently copied, and also sent 
for this purpose to other places. Add to this the perse- 
cution of the christians in the first centuries by which 
also these sacred documents were exposed to many injuries and 
accidents, and you will find it not surprising that the original 
autographs seem to have disappeared already in the middle of 
the third century. The last notice of their existence is proba- 
bly given by Tertullian towards the end of the second century; 
he refers the heretics, who objected that the sacred text has 
been corrupted by the Jewish christians, to the original writ- 
ings, as they are read in the apostolical churches ; "Go, he says, 

to the apostolical churches where the authentical writings 

of them (the apostles,) are recited, sounding the voice and 
representing the countenance of each of themf)" We know, 



*) Whether the use of parchment or of Egyptian paper is more ancient, is 
uncertain ; at the time of Augustus the latter was much more used, princi- 
pally because it was much cheaper and more easily obtained, than parchment. 
There were different sorts of this paper, the ieparlicq used by the Egyptian 
priests for their religious writings, the Augusta, Livia, Claudia, Fania etc. 
At the time of Augustus not the first, but the other, less durable sorts were 
used. (Strabo, Plin. H. N, 13, 12, 24.) In the N. T. the paper is twice men- 
tioned 2. loan. 12, and 3 Joan, 13 ; the parchment once. (2 Tim. 4 13,). 
Constantin M. ordered at once 50 copies of the Scriptures on parchment ; 
from this time it seems, that parchment came again more into use. Among 
all the ancient manuscripts of the Scripture extant is only one of Egyp- 
tian paper, from the 7th or 8th century, consisting in four leaves of the 
gospels. A. Maier, p. 49. 

f) Percurre Ecclesias apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apos- 
tolorum suis locis praesidentur, apud quas ipsae autkenticae litter de eorum 



THE MOST RELIABLE TEXT. 201 

some critics understand the words "litterae authenticae" of the 
Greek text, opposite to the translations, not of the autographs 
opposite to the copies. But to get the Greek text in a copy, 
it was not necessary to go to the apostolical churches ; such 
could be had in every place at that time. Moreover the word 
•'authenticae" means in the ancient language of the law the 
original in the strict sense, opposite to a copy of it ; and no 
one will doubt, that Tertullian in the work referred to, uses 
the language and terms of the law; also that he added "ipsae 
authenticae" indicates that he will have it understood in the 
strictest sense. Hence we agree -vvith H. Grotius, saving, 
that according to Tertullian the very "architypa" of some 
books were still extant at his time.*) But after the time of Ter- 
tullian no further reliable notice of the autographs has been 
left by antiquity : for what is said of the autograph of St. 
Mark, preserved partly in Venice, partly in Prague, is with- 
out any foundation, as we showed above ; and the statement of 
the Chronicon Alex., that there was still in the beginning of 
the fourth century an autograph of St. John preserved at 
Ephesus, likewise as the tradition, that the church of Constanti- 
nople was in possession of a gospel of St. Matthew, written by 
the hand of St. Barnabas, in whose grave it was found, is not 
sufficiently testified. Moreover we know, that already in the 
third century the differences of the Greek text in the different 
manuscripts were felt very much by Origen and his cotempo- 
raries ; the remedy for this evil would have been very easy, if 
the autographs had still been known. 

3. It may be surprising, that as we remarked, already in the 
third century, many different readings had crept into the Greek 



recitantur, sonantes vocem et representantes faciem uniuscuiusque. Prox- 
ima est tibi Achaia : habes Corinthum ; si non longe es a Macedonia, ta- 
bes Philijppos, babes Thessalonicenses, etc., De Praescript. haer c. 36, 
Conf. contra Marc. IV* 5." 

1) H. Grot : aliquorum librorum ipsa architypa suo adkuc tempore 
ait (Tertullianus) extitisse. 7 ' De Verii. relig. Christ. lib. III. 



202 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

text; but if we ask for the cause of it, we shall find it quite 
natural ; for besides the unavoidable mistakes of the transcrib- 
ers, as we find them also in the manuscripts of other works of 
antiquity, there was the peculiarity of the language in which 
the sacred documents are written. This language is the Greek, 
but, we may say, only in the outside, in the wording ; the con- 
struction and connection of the words and sentences are ac- 
cording to the genius of the Hebrew; consequently the lan- 
guage of the K T. is full of Hebraisms, solecisms, anomalies and 
irregular constructions ; the Greek copyists could be very easi- 
ly induced sometimes perhaps unconsciously, to smooth the orig- 
inal roughness of the language, or, as the Greek had different 
perfectly developed dialects, to conform it more to their own 
dialect, *) or also to add at the margin some glosses for making 
the text clearer, but which afterwards were confused with the 
text itself. Such corrections, once being commenced, increas- 
ed in a rapid progression, as we may justly suppose, that cop- 
ies were multiplied at these times day by day. Concerning the 
gospels in particular, St. Jerom remarks, that a great many 
errors came in the manuscripts by this, that if one evangelist 
mentioned something more, than the other, this was added by 
the readers or copyists also to the other, or if one of the Evan- 
gelists seemed to be at variance with the other, that they be- 
lieved, according to the one, the others had to be corrected. 
Thus it happened, he concludes, that now all things are mixed 
up, and in Mark several parts are found that are of Luke and 
Matthew, and in the others again such things, which belong not 
to themselves. f) 

4. Hence it is so, as we said, that in the third century a 
revision of the sacred text seemed to be of urgent necessity. 

*) This is certainly the fast in manuscripts, written at Alexandria, where 
the fuller Macedonic dialect was spoken. 

f) Unde accidit, ut apud nos mixta sint omnia et in Marco plura Lucae et 
Matthaei, et in ceteris reliquorum quae aliis propria sunt, inveniantur. Hier- 
om. ep. ad Damas. 



THE .•'•• EXT. 203 

Origen undertook to revise the text of the Septuagint for the 
Old Testament in his Plexapla and Tetrapla, but lie was afraid 
to lay his hand on the text of the IS". T. in a similar manner, 
on account of the great opposition he might find in doing so, J) 
and also the difficulty of the work itself. The manu- 
scripts, called after Origen, which St. Jercm esteems so 
highly, that their readings are to him a decided authority,!) 
offer, therefore, not a revised but only a more correct text, be- 
cause they were copied and completed under the eyes of Ori- 
gen. These manuscripts were preserved, like the Hexapla, in 
the renowned library of St. Pamphilus atCesarea in Palestine. 
But what Origen refrained to do, two other learned men soon 
after him undertook, Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch (312) 
and Hesychins, an Egyptian bishop, of about the same time ; 
both revised first the text of the Septuagint, and then having 
obtained in this the approbation of their contemporaries, dared 
also to undertake a revision of the text of the N. T. ; but St. 
Jeromf) and with him the occidental or Latin church did not 
approve of these revisions : he says, "that by the translations, 
made before their corrections, it is evident, that what they 
have added is false. "*) A council of Rome in the year 494 
A. Ch. declared even "the gospels, which falsified Lucian, to be 
"apocrypha;" and in like manner the gospels, revised by Hesych- 
ius.f) Hence according to the judgment of St. JeromandtheLat- 



J)Orrig, Comment, in Matth. torn. XV, n. 14. "In excmpiaribus antem 
Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non'putavi." 

$) St. Jerom. coment. in Matth. 24. 36, "In quibnsdam codicibus latinis 
additum est neque Films; quum in graecis et maxime Adamantii (Origenis) 
et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeat adscriptnm. Id. in Gal. "Legitur 
in quibnsdam codicibus "'■quisvos fascinavit n on credere veritati ." Sed hoc 
quia in Adimantii exemplaribus non habetur, omisimus. (Origen was call- 
ed on account of his eminent learning and talents vir adamantinus et aeneus, 
a man of diamond and brass.) . 

'*) "Hieronym. ad Damas : Praetermitto eos codices, quos a Luciano et 
Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio. 

f )Quibus (Luc. et Hesych.) nee profuit in Novo Test, emendasse cum mul- 
tarum gentium scriptura antea translata doceat falsa esse quae addita 
sunt. — 1. c. 



204 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

in church in general, the manuscripts, more ancient than those 
of Lucian and Hesychius, offered a more genuine text, es- 
pecially if copied from the manuscripts of Origen. St. Jerom 
therefore, when -charged by Pope Damasus to revise the Latin 
translation, compared these ancient Greek codices with the 
Latin manuscripts.*) The critics of now-a-days, as we shall 
see further on, after many aberrations and illusions, came at 
last to the conclusion, that St. Jerom was right, rejecting these 
revised texts, especially of Lucian ; for it cannot be denied, 
that the text of Lucian contains many unmistakable amplifica- 
tions and grammatical corrections of the original, more simple 
and less grammatical text; fewer innovations seem to have been 
made in the revision of Hesychius. Still, in the Oriental 
churches the view of St. Jerom remained without influence. 
Alexandria and Egypt adopted the revised text of Hesychius, 
Antioch and Constantinople the text of Lucian ; yea, by the 
authority of St. Chrysostom, who followed in his homilies the 
text of Lucian, the same was, after a short time in the Greek 
church of Asia, received in all manuscripts. In this manner 
originated the three so-called families of manuscripts, f) the 
Alexandrian, the Asiatic, that is, of Antioch and Constantino- 
polis, and between both of them the "codices Palestini," 
which, as St. Jerom says, Eusebius and Pamphilus published as 
the elaborations of Origen. But it seems that either the dif- 
ference between the Palestine Codices and the Alexandrian 
manuscripts cannot be distinctly marked out, or that scarcely 
any of the Palestine manuscripts has been preserved. 
L. Hug believes that the uncial-manuscripts K., M. for 
the whole N. T. and Codex A. for the gospels give the text of 
Palestine. Still other critics distinguish only the Alexandrian 
and Asiatic families. 



*) Hier. ad Dam : ik Haecpraefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor tantum Evan- 
gelia. . . . Codicum Graecorum eniendata collatione, sed veterum." 

f) St. Hieronym, adv, Ruf. 1. II, c. 36, Mediae inter has provinciae 
Palestinos Codices legunt quos ab Origene elaborates, Eusebius et Paraphil- 
ia vulg:averunt ; totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat. 



THE MOST RELIABLE TEXT. 205 

5. Alexandria in Egypt was at that time the principal place, 
where the traffic in manuscripts nourished. They were consid- 
ered the best written, and being critically correct ; therefore 
they were highly esteemed and sold at a high price.*) But the 

*) A short notice of the principal manuscripts extant will not be out of 
place. The most ancient, written before the period of stichometry are : 

1) Codex A. Alexandrinus, in the British museum : of the Alexandrian 
family, from the middle of the 5th century. 

2) Codex B. Vaticanus, in the library of the Vatican : likewise from 
Egypt, by some dated back to the beginning of the 4th century. 

3) Codex C, also called Ephrevi rescriptus, a palimpsest, in the library of 
Paris : probably from the time between C. B. and C. A; also of Egyptian 
origin; its text is next to that of Cod. B. 

4) Cod. Sinaiticus. lately discovered by C. Teschendorf ; considered to be 
the most ancient, or at least as old as Cod. B; again of Egyptian 
origin. 

5) Cod. Z. Dublinensis rescriptus, only containing the gospel of St. 
Matthew; in time after Cod. C. and of the same origin. 

6) Smaller fragments of this period are Cod. Borgianus (T) ascribed to 
the 4th century. Cod. Guelferbytanus P. and Gruelferb. Q., ascribed to the 

6th century, all of Egyptian origin. — Of the period when the stichometry was 
introduced, are : 

1). Cod. Cantabrig. B., Graeco-latinus, containing the four gospels and the 
Acts ; also called Codex Bezae: ascribed to the 6th century; its text is the 
Alexandrian, yet with some peculiarities, very near to the Vul- 
gate. 

2). Cod Claromoanus D. containing the epistles of St. Paul, considered by 
some to be the second part of the foregoing: its text seems to be a copy of a 
manuscript before St. Jerom. 

3). Cod. Sangermanensis E., probably a faithful copy of the foregoing. 

4). Cod. E. also Cod. Laudianus, containing the Acts of the Ap., from the 
7th century. 

5.) Cod. F. Augiensis. once at P.eichenau, now at Cambridge, containing 
also only the Ep. of St. Paul ; a copy of an ancient text, made in the 9th 
century. 

6). Cod. G-., or Boernerianus, containing 13 epistles of St. Paul, a copy of 
an ancient text probably before St. Jerom. — The Codices DEF G are call- 
ed the Latinihj Tischendorf, probably written in Western Europe, therefore 
being Greek and Latin. 

7). Cod. H. Coislinianus CCII, from the mount Athos, probably from the 
6th century, compared, as a postscript says, with the manuscripts of Cesarea 
in Palestine, containing fragments of 5 ep. of St. Paul. 

After the period of the stichometry, having already the punctuation, are 



206 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

patriarchal see of Alexandria lost much of its authority already 
in the fifth century and declined in the same degree, as the see 
of Constantinopolis gained in importance. In the seventh cen- 
tury Egypt was over-run by the Mahometans, Alexandria taken 
audits library burned bye ommand of the Chalif Omar 641 A. Ch. 
This is probably the cause, that the number of Alexandrian man- 
uscripts which are yet preserved, is rather small in comparison 
with the Asiatic manuscripts, the number of which begins to in- 
crease with the seventh century. Of the 700 manuscripts of the 
N. T.', preserved to this day, of which, however only, a few con- 
tain all the books of the N, T., are about 23 uncial codices, 
and fifty with small letters belonging to the Alexandrian fam- 
ily; all the others are of the Asiatic family, of which are only 
eight with uncial letters, whereby we see, that the latter are 
mostly of a later date, since the cursive-writing with small let- 
ters was later introduced. 

6. Even before Alexandria had fallen into the hands of the 
Saracens, the Greek language which was in the first centuries 
very commonly known in Rome and the southern parts of Italy 
and Gaul, had ceased to be cultivated. The Greek manu- 
scripts were, therefore, soon forgotten, in western Europe, and 
lay buried in the libraries. The Latin version, especially the 
corrected text of St. Jerom, after some resistance, was alone 
from this time copied and multiplied in the Occident. Thus it 
went on until the end of the fifteenth century. By the over- 
throw of the Greek empire (1453) the fugitive Greeks brought 
along with them to western Europe great treasures of Greek 
books, and among them a large number of manuscripts of the 
Scripture. Greek literature was soon revived in Italy and oth- 
er countries. The art of printing having been invented in the 



1) Cod. K. from the 8th or 9th century. 2) Cod. L. from the 9th cent. 3) 
Cod. M. from the 10th cent. 4) C. N, C. 0. and C. R., are short fragments. 
5) C. S. Vatic, from the 10th cent. 6) Cod. V. from the 9th. 7) Cod. X, 
Cod. Sangall. and three of Moscow. — All these are uncial Codices. 



THE MOST RELIABLE TEXT. 207 

same century, many of the ancient manuscripts were printed, 
especially the classics, the works of the fathers, and soon also 
Latin and German Bibles. In the year 1488 appeared tlio 
first edition of a Hebrew Bible ; last of all, the Greek text of 
the N. T. was published by the press. The celebrated Spanish 
minister and bishop of Toledo, Cardinal Ximenes com- 
menced 1502 to collect manuscripts and called the most learn- 
ed men he could find, to Alcala (Complutum) to publish the Old 
and N. T. in the original languages. For the Old Testament 
he bought manuscripts for heavy sums ; for the 1ST. T. he got 
some codices from the Vatican library ; one, which belonged to 
himself, called "Codex Rhodiensis," has since that time been 
lost. The N. T. was printed 1514, the whole Scripture 1517, 
but it was not published before 1520, with the approbation of the 
holy See. At the same time D. Erasmus of Rotterdam, procured 
a Greek edition for the book-seller Frobenius of Bale ; but he 
had no good manuscripts,*) all of a late date, in the whole only 
five which he could compare. The first print of it appeared 
1516, dedicated to Pope Leo X ; in the second edition (1519) 
he corrected not less than 300 passages, of his first edition ; in 
the fourth edition (1527), was also the text of the "Biblia Com- 
plutensia," (of Ximenes) compared; a fifth edition appeared 
1535, again with some changes. After these editions of Bale 
and Alcala followed many others, that were merely a re-print 
of one or the other text of the foregoing editions. Simon cle 
Colines composed of the two texts one, selecting from each of 
them what |he considered to be preferable. Robert Etienne 
(Stephanus,) a scholar and printer of Paris, compared sixteen 
manuscripts of the royal library of Paris to procure a new edition; 
but nevertheless, in his first (1546) and second edition he followed 
the text of Alcala ; in the third (1550) he preferred to follow the 



*) For the Apocalypse, Erasmus had only one manuscript, that of Reuch- 
lin, in which were wanting the last six verses, wherefore he supplied this de- 
fect by translating these verses from the Latin into Greek. His manuscript 
for the gospels was of the 15th century. 



208 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

fifth edition of Erasmus, adding a collection of different readings 
from the Codices of the royal library ; the fourth edition (1551) 
obtained some celebrity by dividing the text into verses, which 
division has been retained to this day. After R. Etienne, fol- 
lowed Theodor Beza, who, in his two first editions, only re- 
published the text of R. Etienne, adding some more different read- 
ings. In the mean time he came in posession of two manu- 
scripts, the Codex Cantabrigiensis and Claromontanus ; more- 
over he could compare the Syrian translation called Peschito 
and some Arabian ; hence he was enabled to correct the former 
text in many passages, yet he changed also frequently without 
necessity. He published this reformed text first 1582, and it 
was many times reprinted afterwards. In the seventeenth 
century, speculating book-sellers of Ley den in Holland, the 
Brothers Elzevire, succeeded in acquiring, as it were, a monop- 
oly for their edition of the Greek Testament ; they published 
the third edition of R. Etienne, corrected in 100 passages 
from the edition of Beza, and in some other passages by an un- 
known critic after unknown authorities ; and as this edition 
was made up in a neat duodecimo volume, they had such a suc- 
cess, that they were daring enough to declare the text of their 
second edition to be the u textus receptus," the text received by 
all;*) and really, what was asserted with the greatest impu- 
dence by speculators, was believed by the world ; it was to the 
shame of the learned world, the textus receptus until the 
end of the 18th century. It is true, John Fell, the learned 
bishop of Oxford, and after his death, his friend John Mill 
procured 1675 an edition, having compared many manuscripts 
not compared before. J. Mill also thought of the necessity 
of investigating into the value of the manuscripts according 
to sound principles. f) But after all, the text of the 

*) They said in the preface: "Textum ergo habes ab omnibus receptum, 
in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus." 

f) The age of the manuscripts is made out by the following criteria: 1) 
whether they are written all with large (uncial) letters, or in cu : L 



THE MOST RELIABLE TEXT. 209 

Elzevires remained in possession of the field. 

7. By " Brian Walton," in his London Polyglot and by 
Mill, some of the best Alexandrian manuscripts ■were com- 
pared ; in consequence of this the number of different readings 
increased to an alarming extent. Mill added to his edition 
of the text of B. Etienne, more than 30,000 different readings. 
It had the appearance, as if the Greek text would dissolve 
itself into a chaos of confusion. The Greek original, of which 
the Protestants had boasted so much against the Catholics with 
their Latin Vulgate, was in a lamentable state. A protestant 
theologian of Wurtemberg, I. A. Bengel, moved by scruples 
of faith in the Bible by this confusion, examined first carefullv 
the 30,000 different readings, collected by M. Mill; then he com 
pared thirty manuscripts, not investigated before, and more- 
over the Latin translations, the Vulgate and the Itala, and two 
oriental versions, the Coptic and the Armenian. In this man- 
ner he came at last to the fact, that there are two principal 
sources from which all the manuscripts are derived, and conse- 
quently he divided them into the Asiatic and Alexandrian fam- 

the second are all of a later date, but not all uncial manuscripts are of a 
high age. 2) Whether the letters are written in a continuous series without 
any division of them into words or sentences, having therefore no punctua- 
tion at all, or any other interruption of the lines ; if so, then they are dated 
back before the fifth century. 3) Whether they are written in a stichometric- 
al manner, so that every line contains only as many words as easily could be 
pronounced by the reader in one breath; and therefore no line fills up the 
whole space (as we write verses). This manner of writing the Codices was 
introduced by Euthalias of Alex, in the year 462, first for the epistles of St. 
Paul, and afterwards for the gospels, to make easier the correct reading of 
them in the churches. 4) Since by this manner of writing a good deal of 
space was lost, we find in the seventh century, that the lines were filled up 
again, but the ^stichoV that is the number of words to be read in one breath- 
ing, were seperated by points or other signs; punctuated manuscripts are, 
therefore, to be placed in and after the 7th century, except that perhaps the 
points are not original, but appear to be added later by a second hand. 5) 
The more perfect the punctuation of a manuscript is, the later is its origin; 
in the tenth century in some instances the single words were distinguished 
by points. A. Maier, p. 504. 

14 



'210 TRUTHFULNESS OE THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

ilies, of which he gave the preference to the Alexandrian cod- 
ices, together with the Latin Vulgate. In the year 1734, one 
century after the second edition of the "Elzevires," he dared at 
last to publish a different text, the result of his indefatigable 
researches. Yet he was much opposed for this innovation, so 
that J. J. Wetstein, who continued the researches of Bengel 
in the same direction, in order to avoid the suspicion of heter- 
odoxy before his protestant brethren, saw himself compelled 
to give in his edition again the text of the "Elzevires,"*) adding 
only in the notes the result of his researches. J. Griesbach 
followed in the footsteps of Bengel and Wetstein ; he denied 
the authority of the so called " textus receptus," or any other 
printed text, and procured an edition in which he took the 
" textus receptus," but changed and corrected it as he found it 
necessary according to his critical researches. His first edition 
appeared 1774 ; it was much improved by another, printed in 
1796. A third edition of the same text was procured by D. 
Schulze, Lips. 1827. 

8. Still even the corrected text of Griesbach would not 
satisfy a later critic, Charles Lachmann ; he thinks, that 
Griesbach and the other critics before him allowed too much 
influence to their own conjectures and subjective views in cor- 
recting the text. To approach with more certainty to the 
really original text, the safest way according to him would be, 
to recover from the documents preserved, the most ancient. 
Hence he, at last, gave entirely up the so-called "textus re- 
ceptus," and compared for obtaining the desired text only the 
most ancient manuscripts, eleven in number, all of which are 
either of the Alexandrian family, or perhaps partly also deri- 

*) This common text was indeed superstitiously worshipped by the pro- 
testant theologians. Abr. Calov (ob. 1650) writes : It is impious and a 
piofane 'boldness to change even one point or to substitute a spiritus lenis 
for a spiritus asper. Ludw. Capellus, (1675) believed that all vowels and 
points or accents of the text are inspired. Hilgenf. p. 97. 



THE MOST RELIABLE TEXT. 211 

vecl from the " Codices Palaestinenses."*) Besides these man- 
uscripts, he consulted the ancient Latin translations, the Itala 
and Vulgate, and the passages of the Scripture, as they are 
* quoted by the fathers up to the fourth century. The result of 
this proceeding led to a text, which approaches much more 
than that of Griesbach, to the Latin translation of the Vul- 
gate. The first edition appeared 1831, another 1842, torn. I, 
1850, torn. II. Following similar principles, Const. Tischen- 
dorf published another text, in the year 1840 ; two years after 
the same critic published another edition in Paris, in which he 
gives a Greek text, perfectly in accordance with the Latin 
Vulgate. t) Some, even catholic writers, think that in doing 
so he went rather too far at once ;J) for he corrected the Greek 
text even in such passages according to the Vulgate, in which 
none of the manuscripts extant agrees with the Latin transla- 
tion, provided that the same is supported by the reading in 
another ancient translation, as the Syriac, Arabian, or by a 
father of the first centuries. We refer here to one instance of 
some importance. In the 2d ep. to Timoth. ch. 3, v. 16, the 
Vulgate reads : Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est 



*) Lachmann admitted as authority for constituting his text the manu- 
scripts A, B, C, D, (Contabrigiens. et Claromantonus,) E, (Laudianus) G,H, 
and the fragments P, Q, T, and Cod, Z, (Dublinens.) 

f) It was re-printed in 1849. 

J) Tischendorf himself did not consider this text to be perfect yet, but 
a step nearer to such a text ; he says in the prooemium: "Erit autem frugis 
optimae, ubi primum fecerit ad studium graeci N. T. textus suscitandum, 
alendum, fovendum apud ipsos eos, quibus latinus textus prae ceteris commen- 
datus et sancitus est, turn vero adjuverit atque illustraverit versionis Vulgatae 
usum criticum, denique ingenia quae et pia et strenua sunt ad novas excita. 
verit lucubrationes quibus ad veritatis lucem magis magisque perveniaturV In 
an audience that G. T. had of Gregory XVI. in the year 1843, when the 
Pope showed to him a work defending the Vulgate, he replied, that he also 
prefers the true text of Jerom to the Greek of R. Stephanus." Tischendorfi- 
ana. by J. E. Volbeding, Lips. 1862, p. 22. The latest edition by Tischen- 
dorf, is from the year 1858, in which he gives the further results of his re- 
searches in the principal libraries of Europe and in several Greek convents 
of Egypt and Asia. 



212 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

ad docendum, ad arguendum Every scripture divinely in- 
spired is profitable for teaching, for reproof The protestant 

translation according to the Greek so-called original, gives : 
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable 

for doctrine and for reproof The difference in the sense is 

easily perceived, and is caused by the conjunction Kai {and) of 
the Greek text. Tischendorf expunges this ,l *rf" though we 
read it in all the manuscripts preserved, because the reading 
of the Vulgate is supported by Clement of Alexandria, the 
Syriac and first Arabian translations. This seems rather bold ; 
but if we consider that Lachmann admits only eleven manu- 
scripts for the restoration of the most ancient text, of which 
manuscripts three are only fragments, and the most ancient of 
them does not contain the epistles of St. Paul, and moreover, 
that the Latin Vulgate has been corrected by St. Jerom accor- 
ding to manuscripts, more ancient than any of those now ex- 
tant, and more correct, as he believed, than any other of his 
time, we cannot deny that Tischendorf corrected similar pas- 
sages not without good reasons according to the Vulgate ; 
still, even supposing that he went too far in such corrections, 
this much remains as a certain result of the best protestant crit- 
ics, Bengel, Griesbach, Lachman, Tischendorf,*) 1) that the 
Latin Vulgate is one of the authorities for the critics who en- 
deavor to restore a Greek text, more approaching to the origi- 
nal text ; 2) that the Vulgate comes nearer to the real origi- 
nal, than any other modern translation according to the so-called 
original Greek'; 3) that the Vulgate, concerning the different 
readings, is not subordinate to any manuscript extant, or any 
printed text, but co-ordinate. f) Hence the declaration of the 



*) We may add G. Campbell, Mill, Bloomfield, T. Kitto. (Kenrick, p. 

26.) 

f) Hence C. Tischendorf published the most ancient manuscript of the 
Vulgate in the year 1850. It is this the Codex Amiatinus, thus called from 
the convent on the Mount Amiate near Siena, now in the Laurentiana at 
Florence. This manuscript was written by the Abbot Servandus in the year 
541, about 120 years after the death of St. Jerom. J. E Volbeding, p. 48. 



THE MOST RELIABLE TEXT. 213 

Council of Trent in favor of the Vulgate, enacting " that this 
translation be held for authentic in public readings, disputa- 
tions, preaching and exposition, and that nobody may dare or 
presume to reject it under any pretence whatsoever," has been 
perfectly justified by these protestant critics. The force of 
the term authentic, as employed by the fathers of the council, 
is equal to authoritative and corresponds with authorized or 
standard version. ||) But for the Protestants, it is time to 
change on the title-page of their translation the remark : 
"Translated out of the original Greek," and rather say, "Trans- 
lated out of the Greek, as R. Stephanus, or Beza, or the 
booksellers Elzevire gave in their printed editions." The title 
as it stands now, confers a wrong impression on the reader who 
does not know how it stands with the so-called original Greek. 
9. Yet whilst claiming full justice for the Vulgate, we do not 
depreciate the Greek text as such, but only the former printed 
editions of this text ; on the contrary we thank the protestant 
critics, referred to, not alone, because they vindicated the Lat- 
in Vulgate, but also because they exerted themeselves so much 
to restore a correcter Greek text.*) The catholic interpreter 



||) Kenrick's Gospels, p. 24. 

*) Of the highest importance in this regard is the Codex Sinaiticus, dis- 
covered by C, Tischendorf in the year 1859, in the convent of St. Catherine 
on mount Sinai. This manuscript contains besides the greatest part of the 
0. T. the entire N. T. and is believed to be even older than the celebrated 
Cod. Vaticanus, that is, dating back to the middle of the 4th century. Tisch- 
endorf thinks, that the C. S. may be even one of the fifty Codices, copied, 
as Eusebius relates (Vita Constant. IV, 36) by order of Constantinus M. He 
also observes, that the same agrees in many instances .only with the C. Vat- 
icianus, and concludes from this, that both these manuscripts must have been 
copied from the same original, though at different times, and probably the Sin- 
aiticus before the Vaticanus. The question on the canonical books was not yet 
settled at the time, when this Codex was written, since we find among 
the other canonical books of the Old T. also the fourth book of Macch., 
and to the books of the N. T. the epistle of Barnabas, and the first 
part of the Pastor of Hermas, are added. It was published 1862 at 
Petersburg, under the auspices of the Russian emperor. The price of a 
copy (4 vol. fol.) is about §230. 



214 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

and translator of the Scripture, though he will, after the stated 
results of the modern critics, the more carefully abide by the 
direction of the council of Trent, and take for the safe basis of 
his labors the text of the Vulgate, yet he would act against 
all reason and against the intentions of the church, by neg- 
lecting to study and compare a correct Greek text, not to fol- 
low its different readings, but to ascertain and understand 
more profoundly the sense of the Vulgate. The best trans- 
lation will not always succeed in expressing perfectly the sense 
of the original, or will be deficient in giving the full, determin- 
ate idea of the author. Hence a translation or interpretation 
of the Vulgate, without recurring continually to the Greek 
text, must necessarily become shallow, indefinite and ambigu- 
ous, and not seldom entirely erroneous, putting another sense 
into the words of the translator, than he intended to give. 
Hence since the revival of the Greek letters, no catholic in- 
terpreter or translator of any name, ever neglected the study 
of the Scripture in the original tongues ; the three first poly- 
glots are catholic publications; and in the latest English 
translation of the New Testament by the learned Archbishop 
of Baltimore, the Greek text is never lost sight of. But this 
is true : as long as the Greek text is not restored, at least one as 
reliable as the text which St. Jeromhad, the catholic interpret- 
er will always, concerning the different readings, hold in the 
first place the Vulgate ; and only in the second, the common 
Greek text ; and we think, no well-informed protestant will on 
this account bear a grudge against him. 



III. — The G-ospels Divinely Inspired. 

1. Thus far we have given the natural evidences for the 
historical truthfulness of the four gospels in all their details. 



THE GOSPELS DIVINELY INSPIRED. 215 

We know the authors of them ; they show themselves well in- 
formed and claim by their moral character an unexceptionable 
belief. They write in the main on the same subject ; and 
though they appear to be quite independent in their narratives 
one from the other, yet they do not contradict one another. All 
that seems at the first view to be a contradiction, if strictly exam- 
ined and compared, is reconciled without any great difficulty ; 
perhaps in some instances we might wish to know more defi- 
nitely how the statements of the one have to be exactly under- 
stood, compared with the other, but a real contradiction among 
them in their whole narratives cannot be shown. Though their 
primary and sole object was by no means to write an exact 
history of the life of Christ, yet they never loose themselves 
in the common place of generalities ; no, they give facts after 
facts, frequently with all their peculiar circumstances; they 
are nowhere guilty of an anachronism ; they state the y eai s, 
the months, the days, and in the history of the passion of 
the Lord, even the hours of the day for their facts in such a 
manner, as was customary at their time. Also their topograph- 
ical notices appear distinct and correct, as far as they go, so 
that one, having well studied the gospels, could, coming to the 
holy land, follow from place to place, all the principal move- 
ments of the Lord during His public life, without any great 
difficulty or mistake. The incidents, connected with the po- 
litical history of the Jewish nation at that time, though there 
existed then many disturbances and irregularities, are amply 
confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus Fl. To question, 
therefore, the historical reality of the life of Jesus of Naza- 
reth, as described by the evangelists or to attempt to dissolve 
it into a conglomerate of myths and tales, collected from 
all the corners of the world, and concentrated artificially in Je- 
sus of Nazareth, as it has been attempted in our times, must be 
judged and will be judged by posterity, as the greatest excess 
of unbelieving madness ; it is as much as to deny all historical 
evidence, and to despair of human nature. No, the life of Je- 



216 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

sus of Nazareth is an open day-light history and reality. Man 
may shut his eyes upon or turn them from it, and not believe ; 
but it will not be possible to excuse his unbelief ; we say not, 
before the judgment of God, but even before the judgment of 
human reason. "Thy testimonies, Lord, are very sure." 
Psalm. 92, 5. 

2. Moreover we have shown, that concerning the original 
text, of these holy books, though for a while a great disturb- 
ance prevailed, partly at least caused by the opposition against 
the catholic church, at last the right track has been discovered 
again by high-minded protestant critics ; we are at present al- 
most as near to it again, as St. Jerom was when he corrected 
the Vulgate, and perhaps we will come nearer yet, by the con- 
tinued researches and labors of such men. Hence, also in 
this regard, the gospels claim our full confidence, especially if 
we compare, as we said, in our interpretations continually the 
Greek text with the ancient translations, foremost the Vulgate. 
Still, the gospels claim beyond all these evidences of truth- 
fullness, yet a higher character ; they claim not only to be a 
truthful, humanly reliable narrative of facts and doctrines, but 
to be the inspired ivork of G-od ; — yet here one might say, if the 
gospels prove themselves to be genuine and true by the high- 
est historical evidences, so that nobody can refuse to admit 
their truthfulness without denying all historical faith and con- 
sequently contradicting human reason itself, can there be any 
need or utility of divine inspiration? We answer, first, that 
this, whether inspiration is necessary or not, is not exactly the 
question, but whether the inspiration claimed by the gospels is 
a real fact ; for if so, its necessity and utility, as it is a work of 
God, cannot be called in question, though we may not clearly 
see it ; secondly, it is, however, not difficult to see directly the 
high importance of the inspiration; for the merely human 
testimony, as man is subject to error, especially in all things 
that do not fall under the perception of the senses and under 
the comprehension of natural reason, cannot give an evidence, 



THE GOSPELS DIVINELY INSPIRED. 217 

adequate to all that we read in the gospels ; they do not only 
state facts, perceptible by the senses, but they contain in the 
greatest part sublime doctrines, contrary to the carnal sense of 
man, and mysteries, far above human reason. Who does not 
see here at once, that if the writers of these documents are 
not supposed to be absolutely infallible, how many objections 
to their statements will be made by human reason? Conceed- 
ed, that they were well informed and faithful, could they not 
misunderstand the high doctrines declared to them, could they 
not misconstrue these mysteries even without any intention to 
deceive, merely by human fallibility in such questions ? We 
know by experience too well, what the gospels become under 
the hands of such, who though not doubting their historical 
character undertake to interpret them without admitting their 
absolute immunity from all errors or mis-statements. The ra- 
tionalistic school among protestant divines has given too many 
proofs, that, unless the authors of the gospels are believed to 
be absolutely infallible, not merely human witnesses, very 
little or nothing of Christian doctrines and mysteries will 
be left. But an absolute infallibility that excludes all possibil- 
ity of error in such matters, requires for man a divine assist- 
ance. This may be two-fold, either merely negative, exclud- 
ing all error in the writer, or positive, not only protecting the 
writer against error, but also moving him to write, and to write 
only that, which God intends to have written. That at least 
the first kind of assistance, which theologians call negative in- 
spiration, is by all means necessary to make man in writing 
such doctrines and facts, as the gospels contain, absolutely in- 
fallible, cannot be denied ; and concerning the second kind of 
assistance, who will not admit that God, knowing best what is 
good for man's salvation, could move the holy writers without 
doing anything superfluous, to write down just such facts and 
such points of the revealed doctrines and mysteries, as the 
gospels really contain? Hence the question, whether the in- 
spiration of the holy books is a real fact, cannot be slighted 



218 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

reasonably by any man ; no, it is most important to know how 
it is to be proved. But to make our answer clear, we must 
first more distinctly determine what we understand by inspi- 
ration, 

3. The Council of Trent has declared, that God is the author 
of all books of both the old and the new Testament, and that, 
therefore, these books entire, with all their parts, must be re- 
ceived as sacred and canonical.*) To this declaration, we 
think, at least what concerns the determination of inspiration, 
no protestant will object. Now from this the catholic theolo- 
gians derive the following definition of inspiration ; they say, 
it is the special impulse, direction and presence of the Holy 
Ghost, to move the sacred writer to write, and to direct him 
thus in writing, that the same will not fall into any error, and 
write those things which God intends to have written. f) — 
Therefore they say, four conditions are required, not more and 
not less, for inspiration ; 1) the impulse to write ; 2) the en- 
lightenment of the intellect and the motion of the will ; 3) the 
choice of the things to be written, so that nothing be omitted 
or added to that which God intended to have written by the 
sacred writers ; 4) the continual and special assistance in com- 
pleting the work. J) Consequently it is not necessary 1) that the 



*) Cone. Trident. Sess. 4. Decret. de canon. Script. "Sacrosancta Synod- 
us omnes libros tarn veteris quam novi Testament!, cum utriusque unus Deus 
sit auctor, . . ...pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et venera- 
tur. — Sess. V. c. 1. ref, : Caelestis ille ss. librorum thesaurus, quern Spiri- 
tus sanctus summa liberalitate hominibus tradidit. 

f) Perrone. Compend. vol. I., p. 165. 

j) Bellarm. Controv. de verbo Dei 1. 1. c. 15 : "I answer that God is 
the author of all divine Scriptures, but that He assists in another way the 
prophets, and in another the other, especially historical writers ; for to the 
prophets He revealed the future things and assisted them at the same time 
lest they might add anything else in writing; but to the other writers God did 
not always reveal the things which they were about writing, but He excited 
them to write those things which they had seen or heard, and of which they 
remembered, and assisted them at the same time, lest they might write any 
thing false; which assistance did not prevent that they did not exert them 
selves in thinking and searching what and how they would write." 



THE GOSPELS DIVINELY INSPIRED. 219 

single words and the choice of the expressions, and the con- 
struction of the sentences are inspired or dictated by the Holy 
Ghost, but it is sufficient, that the inspiration embraces the 
matter to be written and the sentences ; 2) neither is it neces- 
sary, that such things which the sacred writers had known in 
a natural manner, were divinely revealed to them, as there are 
historical facts or natural truths ; it is sufficient that God was 
present to them concerning the choice of those things that were 
to be written, and granting to them immunity from every er- 
ror;*) but it would by no means be sufficient 1) only to be pro- 
tected agrinst error, without any positive impulse to the work ; 
2) much less to be protected only against grievous errors, and 
not against slight mistakes, and 3) less yet to be only correct 
in such things, that belong to the doctrine of faith and morals 
and not also in historical, chronological, and similar matters ; 
4) even, if a book written in a merely human manner, would 
be afterwards approved by divine authority in any way, to be 
truthful, it could not be called inspired ; for in these four 
cases God could not be called properly the author of the booJcf) 
This much we think, unless inspiration be a thing without 
meaning or entirely misnamed, must be admitted by all who 
seriously speak of any inspiration of Scripture, whilst a strict- 
er, more narrow definition, as the early protestants used to 
give, so that every word and even every apex (point,) would 
be dictated by the Holy Ghost, leads into endless and indeed, 
useless difficulties, considering the different character of the 
inspired books. J) In this moderate, catholic sense therefore, 



*) Compare St. Luke ch. 1, v. 3. 

f) Bonfrere distinguished. 1) inspiratio antecedens, 2) concomitans, 
et 3) subsequens ; the last is a contradiction in adjecto. By the Universi- 
ties of Louvain and Doway the following proposition, asserted by Lessius 
and Hanielius, was proscribed, namely : Liber aliquis, qualis forte est 2. 
Macch.. humana industria sine assistentia spiritus sancti scriptus, si Spiritus 
sanctus postea testetur. ibi nihil esse falsum, efficitur scriptura sacra.' 7 

%) St. Thorn. 2, 2. q. 174, a. 2. Illorum qui hagiographa conscripserunt, 
plures loquebantur frequentius de his, quae humana ratione cognosci pos- 



220 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

we understand inspiration, when we ask whether the inspi- 
ration of the gospels can be proved to human reason. 

4. By this question, no doubt, we touch the sore spot, the 
Achilles' heel of protestantism. The inspired Scripture is the 
rule of faith for the protestant ; what means this ? The Scrip- 
ture, as far as it is the inspired word of God, is the foundation 
of his faith and hope for eternity ; his faith and hope depends, 
therefore, entirely and ultimately on the fact of the inspiration. 
If this fact cannot be proved with full evidence, his faith is 
vain and his hope delusive ; to believe what I have no evidence 
for, and to hope for what no guarantee whatsoever is given to 
human reason, is fanaticism, not faith or hope. But how can 
the inspiration be proved in any satisfactory manner on the 
protestant ground? We will not include at present all the 
books of the Old and the New Testament, but confine ourselves 
to the four gospels.*) How will you prove their inspired char- 
acter? You answer perhaps, that the apostles received the 
Holy Ghost to guide them in all things into truth. But from 
this would follow, that two of the gospels, those of St. Mark 
and St. Luke, would not be inspired, because they were not 
apostles ; and even in regard to the two other gospels, written 
by apostles, from where do you know that they when writing 
their gospels had the Holy Ghost ? You say perhaps, from the 
sacred writings, so far as they are merely historical documents ; 
but then you have a merely human testimony for a fact, which 
being beyond the reach of human sense and human experience 
is not satisfactorily testified by a mere human testimony; f) and 



sunt, non quasi ex persona Dei, sed ex persona propria, cum adjutorio ta- 
men divini luminis. 

*) A good deal more difficult it is to produce any argument for many of 
the other holy books on the protest ground. 

f ) One might object, that the catholic argument for the inspiration is also 
entirely based on human testimony or historical tradition. But as we shall 
see, this is not so. The catholics presuppose a reliable historical tradition 
in their argument, but this merely historical testimony is not by itself suf- 
ficient to establish the inspiration of any book as an article of faith ; the 



THE GOSPELS DIVINELY INSPIRED. 221 

even if we could know without divine testimony, that the 
apostles had the Holy Ghost, it would not follow neither that 
they were properly inspired, so as to exclude any slight or ac- 
cidental error, nor that they were inspired in all that they 
have written. But if you admit any, even slight or accidental 
errors in the gospels, the inspiration is given up, and you open 
to the wontonness of human cavilling full scope to undermine 
all certainty in the gospels ; for who will determine what is an 
accidental or slight error ? No less inconvenience follows from 
the second point, for to say, that the apostles were divinely in- 
spired in all that they spoke and wrote, leads to absurdities 
and if we admit this not, it will be impossible to determine 
only from this, that they had the Holy Ghost, when they were 
inspired and when not. Hence on this ground, that the apos- 
tles had the Holy Ghost, no evidence can be gained for a real 
inspiration of even two gospels, and much less of all four of 
them. And yet this seems to be of all, the best argument that 
can be offered from the protestant stand-point. Much less 
are the other arguments, commonly given by protestant wri- 
ters. Rev. Hartwell Home, in his introduction to the critical 
study of the Holy Scriptures, treats also on this question. 
Now only mark the heading of the chapter on inspiration, 
namely : " The miracles related in the Old and New Testa- 
ments are proofs that the Scriptures were given by inspiration 
of God;"*) it is not necessary to show all the absurdities which 
would follow from such a principle, and precisely of a similar 
form is his argument drawn from prophecy ; it is never at- 
tempted to show how the prophecies, recorded in the New Tes- 



historical tradition, to have such an effect, must be directly or indirectly ap- 
proved, and as it were, sealed with the divine seal of infallibility by the 
authority of the Church. J. S. Semler, was right in saying, that ' ; since in- 
spiration is not an external fact, no merely external and historical testimo- 
ny can be admitted for proving it." .Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung 
des Canens. Halle 1771, II, 78, p. 29, 115. 
*) Vol. 1, p. 204. seventh edition. 



222 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

tament, were intended to show the inspiration of the books 
which contain them. How, for instance, the truth of our 
Blessed Redeemer's prophecy, touching the destruction of Je- 
rusalem, can demonstrate that the gospel of St. Matthew must 
be inspired, because it relates it.*) Another protestant writer 
reduces the internal evidences of the inspiration to such heads 
as these : " The exalted character given to God," the descrip- 
tion of human nature, the provision revealed in it to man after 
his fall, its morality and its impartiality. f) How many books 
would be inspired according to such evidences, besides the 
Bible ?J) Cardinal Wiseman justly observes : "The Hindoo 
brings every one of the same heads of evidence for his Vedas, 
and the Mahomedan for his Koran." These being the best 
arguments, at least as far as the books of the New Testament 
are concerned, it is certain, that the fact of the inspiration for 
the gospels cannot be demonstrated on the protestant ground. 
We may say to them : "Ye worship ye know not what." 

5. If we consult the history of the first centuries of Chris- 
tianity, we may easily perceive how the first christians came 
to the full conviction of the fact, that the gospels and the oth- 



*) Wiseman's Lectures, vol. I, p. 35. 

f ) Rev. Mr. Tottingharn, Downside Discussion, p. 114. Hilgenfeld, hav- 
ing shown the manner in which the canon of the N. T. originated, remarks 
as a staunch protestant : "Only those protestants who have apostatized to 
the catholic principle of authority and their tradition, can inconsiderately 
hold the Canon of the N. T., coming from the ancient catholic episcopacy, 
to be infallible and establish the inspiration of the Scripture on the inspira- 
tion of the old catholic church." — p. 34. J. D. Michaelis (1791,) says, that 
& protestant can neither appeal to the testimony of the church, nor to the 
internally felt testimony of the Holy Ghost for the inspiration of the Scrip- 
ture ; for also the Mahometan refers to the internal divine feeling for the 
truth of his religion. (Introd. in the N. T. Goetting, 1788,) p. 81. Hence 
lie concludes, that the protestant must be satisfied to know that the holy books 
are authentic, and humanly trustworthy, but not divinely inspired, p. 75. 
Hilgenfeld comes to the same conclusion, p, 188, 1. c. 

X] Not better are the arguments offered by J. Kitto, in his Cyclopaedia of 
Biblical literature, s. v. Inspiration, II, p. 14, Edition of New York, 1861. 



THE GOSPELS DIVINELY INSPIRED. 223 

er books of the New Testament are inspired. There were be- 
sides the really inspired books, many supposititious writings, pro- 
fessing to be of an apostolical origin, in circulation ; for Tin- 
dal, in his celebrated Amyntor, enumerates eighteen books, 
which are condemned and consequently not now received ; and 
Mr. Jones remarks that the list is very far from being com- 
plete. Then there are a great many other works acknowledg- 
ed to have been written by disciples of the apostles, by per- 
sons in the same situation, as St. Luke and St. Mark ; such 
are Barnabas and Hermas, whose writings, accordingly, some 
divines of the last century proposed to be received as portions 
of the canon of Scripture.*) How did the first christians 
make out, which of these works were inspired, and which not? 
Only read what St. Irenaeus and Tertullianf) say: they refer 
to the testimony of the ecclesiastical authorities ; a book, what- 
soever it contained or to whomsoever it was ascribed, unless it 
had the testimony of the ecclesiastical authority for its inspir- 
ed character, was rejected as spurious or apocryphical. Especial- 
ly the churches, immediately founded by the apostles, were 
asked before others, because it was partly supposed, that they, 
having received at least some parts of the N. T. directly from 
the apostles, could give the best testimony for the fact of 
of the inspiration.!) By this it is also easily explained, that 
in regard to some parts of the Scripture for a while some dif- 



*) Wiseman 1. c. p. 29. 

t) Irenaeus adv. Haer. III. 3. 2. et 4. 1. Tertull. c. Marc, IV, 5. says : 
"'Nam etsi Apocalypsin ejus ( Joannis) Marcion respuit, ordo tomen episcopo- 
rum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit auctorem. Sic et ceterarum 
(sc. Scriptuarum) generositas recognoscitur. . . .Eadem Ecclesiarum apos- 
iolicaruni ceteris quoque patrinocinabitur Evangeliis, quae proinde^er Mas 
et secundum Mas habemus, Joannis dico et Matthaei, licet et Marcus, 
quod edidit, Petri amrmetur, cujus interpres Marcus." 

X) St. Augustin, de Doct. Christ. II, 12. In canonicis antem Scriptur- 
is Ecclesiarum catholicarum quam plurium auctoritatem sequatur, inter 
quas sane iliac sint, quae apostolicas sedes habent et epistolas accipere meru- 
erunt. 



224 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

ference prevailed. As all authority of any book depended on 
such an authentic testimony, it occurred sometimes that in one 
part of the church this testimony was not at once fully ascertained, 
and therefore its inspired character contradicted. Hence, "we 
have different lists or catalogues, called canons of the different 
churches. Of the church of Rome such a canon was found by 
Muratori in the library of Milan, therefore, commonly called 
the Muratorian fragment. It has been carefully examined by 
different critics, and it is now agreed on, that this document 
was written between the year 170 — 190. §) The beginning of 
the valuable document is wanting ; it commences, mentioning 
Marcus, and adds then as the third gospel that of 
St. Luke, and as the fourth, that of St. John; from this 
it is naturally supplied that the gospel of St. Matthew was 
placed as the first. Then follow " the Acts of the apostles," 
by St. Luke ; of the epistles of St. Paul, thirteen are enumer- 
ated ; the epistle to the Hebrews is omitted. Of the so-called 
catholic epistles, three or four are mentioned, the passage 
is not quite clear, namely that of St. Jude, and two or three of 
St. John ; the apocalypse or Revelation of St. John follows 
then, and at last some writing of St. Peter is mentioned, but 
whether by this, the epistles of this apostle are meant, or some 
apocryphals, ascribed to St. Peter, can not be made out of the 
text as it stands;*) but because Tertullian, belonging to the 
occidental or Latin church, mentions the first epistle of St. 
Peter, it is probable, that this epistle is meant by the obscure 
expression of the document, so that of all the books of the N. T„ 
would be only omitted the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle 
of St. James and the second of St. Peter. Of the Orient^ 
the two sees of Antioch and Alexandria, prevailed in author- 



|) Muratori. Antiquit. Ital. med. aevi. Tom. III. p. 854, examined by 
Hug, Wieseler, and others. 

*) The words of the text are: "Et Petri tantum recipimus, quam quid- 
em (quidam) ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt." 



THE GOSPELS DIVINELY INSPIRED. 225 

ity. Of Antioch we have the catalogue or canon of the au- 
thorized books in the Syriac translation, the Peschito, publish- 
ed certainly about the middle of the second century ; it con- 
tains the four gospels, with the Acts of the apostles ; of the 
catholic epistles that of St. James, the first of St. Peter, and 
the first of St. John., and finally all the epistles of St. Paul, 
fourteen in number. The other books of the N. T. are wanting, 
the second ep. of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John, that 
of St. Jude, and the Revelation of St. John. Of the see of 
Alexandria we have no catalogue of the inspired books, reach- 
ing back to the second century. Origen in the third century, 
is the first who gives us the canon of this church in his seventh 
homily to Josue, enumerating them in the following order : 
1) The four gospels ; 2) the two epistles of St. Peter ; 3) the 
epistles of St. James and St. Jude ; 4) some epistles (without 
giving the exact number) of St. John; 5) the Acts of the 
apostles by St. Luke ; 6) the fourteen epistles of St. Paul ; in 
other passages also the apocalypse is stated as a canonical book 
by the same author, f) so that all the books of the N. T. were 
received as inspired at that time in Alexandria. Based on 
these and similar testimonies of the tradition within the Church, 
Eusebius gives in the fourth century the following statements 
concerning the canon of the N. T ; he classifies all the books, 
circulating at his times ; 1) such that are by all agreed on; 
(ra 6/io/n- ovpeva^ 2) such that are contradicted, (amWw/tfvcty ; 3) 
spurious books, which, though they did not contain anything 



f) Orig. apucl Euseb. VI, 25. Hilgenfeld remarks of Origen: ; 'Origen 
decides all (in regard to the inspiration of a book) by the empirical prin- 
ciple : Such books, as are not called into question, are undoubtedly genu- 
ine, (and canonical) and those that are called in question, are for this 
very reason of an ambiguous character. Then he adds concerning the 
criticisms of the fathers of the church in general, that they were restrain- 
ed in exercising it by the unanimous tradition of the church, p. 80. To 
define, which book is canonical (inspired) or not. Origin would not de- 
cide according to his own sentiment or according to the internal quality 
of a book, but exclusively by its acknowledgment in the church, p. 47. 

15 



226 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

contrary to the faith of the Church, were not authentic. 4) 
spurious books, fabricated by heretics. Among the first class 
he counts the four gospels, the Acts of the apostles, all the 
epistles of St. Paul, the first of St. John, and the first of St. 
Peter ; the apocalypse of St. John, Eusebius is inclined to 
add also to this class, though doubted by others. To the sec- 
ond class belong the epistle of St. James, of St. Jude, the sec- 
ond of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John. To the 
class of the spurious, not heretical, writings, belong, according 
to Eusebius, the Acts of St. Paul, the so-called " Pastor," 
the apocalypse of St. Peter, the epistle of St. Barnabas, the 
doctrine of the apostles ; and by some, he adds, also 
the "Revelation of St. John," is placed in this class, 
whilst others enumerate it among those agreed on. Moreover 
some added to these books also, " the gospel according to the 
Hebrews," in which, especially those who became christians 
from Judaism, find much delight. Yet all these books could 
also be counted among the second class, " 6 the contradicted." In 
the class of heretical fabrications he puts the gospels of Peter, 
of Thomas, Matthias, the acts of Andrew, of John and the other 
apostles, which show by their form and doctrine to be entirely 
at variance with the true orthodoxy, and prove themselves by 
this to be fabrications of heretics ; they are not only spurious, 
but absurd and impious, "f) If we compare this classification 
with the aforementioned catalogues of the inspired books in 
the different parts of the church, we easily shall see, that this 
classification is nothing else but the result of a careful holding 
together of the traditions on these books in the stated parts of 
the church. In the greatest part they agreed, but in regard to 
five of the catholic epistles, and the apocalypse of St. John 
some difference prevailed, that is, the tradition was not every- 
where perfectly sure ; in the occidental church, it seems, there 
was also some doubt even in the 4th century, entertained con- 



f) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Ill, 25. 



THE GOSPELS DIVINELY INSPIRED. 227 

cerning the epistle to the Hebrews ; for Philastrius, bishop of 
Brescia ( 387 ), acknowledges only thirteen epistles of St. 
Paul. But now the time had arrived where the question on 
the inspired books of the N. T. could finally be settled. The 
communication between the different parts of the church be- 
came in the fourth century more actual. In consequence of 
the Arian heresies several synods were held, among them the 
general councils of Nice and Constantinopolis ; in this man- 
ner all facility was offered to ascertain more the ground on 
which the tradition rested in regard to the disputed books, and 
thus it seems, all doubts, entertained in some parts of the church, 
were soon dispelled. Towards the end of the fourth century 
we have a catalogue of the inspired books of the N. T. in the 
works of Rufinus, in his Exposition of the Apostolical Sym- 
bolum, in which all the parts of the N. T. are exactly enu- 
merated, concluding with these words : " These are the books, 
which the fathers have placed together in the canon, of which 
they desired that the sources for the defense of our faith should 
consist. A provincial council, held at Laodicea, 356, A. D., in 
Minor Asia, enumerates among the books, to be read and re- 
ceived as authority, all of the N. T., only omitting the Reve- 
lation of St. John; for, as it is remarked in another catalogue,*) 
pertaining to the same age and the same part of the church, 
some admit it (the Revelation), but more call it spurious." 
Thus we find it also in the works of Cyrillus of Jerusalem, and 
of Gregory of Xazianz, (f 391). We see by this how careful 
they were not to admit any book, unless duly testified by tra- 
dition. The patriarchal see of Antioch kept up for the litur- 
gical use the canon of the Peschito, but we see from the works 
of Ephrem, the most celebrated father of the Syriac church, 
that the divine authority of the omitted parts was nevertheless 
acknowledged. At Alexandria all the books of the N. T., 

*) This catalogue in verses is attributed to Gregory of Nazianz, but pro- 
bably is of Amphilochius of Iconiuna." Reitlim. p. 85. 



228 TRUTHFULNFSS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

without exception were received. St. Atha.nasius, in a Paschal 
letter enumerates all of them, stating at the same time that he 
had well examined the tradition from the beginning. f) In the 
Latin church, finally, the question was settled first by two pro- 
vincial councils, held at Hippo, (393) and at Carthage (397) ; 
they enumerate all the books of the N. T., merely indicating 
as it seems, that some doubts had been before entertained in 
regard to the epistle to the Hebrews, for they separate it from 
the other epistles of St. Paul, saying ; " thirteen epistles of 
Paul, one to the Hebrews of the same;" at the end of the 
canon, containing this catalogue, it is mentioned, that for the 
confirmation of the canon "the church beyond the sea, (Ec- 
clesia transmarina) should be consulted." This confirmation 
followed a few years after. Pope Innocent the first, declared 
in his epistle to Exuperius of Tolosa in the year 405, A. D., 
for the occidental church all the books, which are to this day 
parts of the N. T., to be canonical, that is, inspired. J) Exactly 
the same declaration was repeated by Gelasius, in a synod at 
Rome, 494,||) and then afterwards by the general councils of 
Florence and of Trent. Thus the fact of the inspiration of 
the Scriptures has been established. §) But the question is 
now, was this proceeding of the church in accordance with the 
principles of reason? This we must shortly take into conside- 
ration. 

6. The church proclaims herself to be by divine institution 
the living continuation of the apostolical preaching of the gos- 
pel of Christ ; to her, therefore, has been intrusted the whole 



f) Athanas. Epist. festal. 39. Opp. Tom. I, p. II. p. 961. conip. Atha- 
nas. Opp. Tom. II. p. 129. 

t) Cod. Can. Eccl. Rom. Opp. S. Leonis M. Venet. 1757. T. Ill, p. 98, 
p. 187, p. 643. 

||) Decret. Dist. XV . c. 3. 

$) Tertull. de praescript. c. 19 : Cujus sint scripturae ? a quo, et per 
quos et quando et quibus sit tradita disciplina quafiunt Christiani ? Ubienim 
apparuerit esse veritatem et disciplinae, et fidei christianae, illic erit Veritas 
seripturarum et expositionum et omnium traditionum christianarum. 



THE GOSPELS DIVINELY INSPIRED. 229 

deposit of faith, that is, all that was taught by the apostles ; to 
her also has been promised the assistance of the Holy Ghost, 
to be guided in all things into truth, so that she may be capa- 
ble of being the faithful guard and interpreter of the deposit 
of faith, intrusted to her care. By this deposit of faith she is 
conscious to herself, that at least a part of the doctrine, preach- 
ed by the apostles, has been consigned in books divinely in- 
spired. This consciousness is universal in the whole church at 
all times ; therefore it must be true, for else the promise of di- 
vine guidance unto all truth, would have failed, w T hich is impos- 
sible.*) Which are these -books? The greatest part of them 
are acknowledged as such again universally within the church; 
in regard to them therefore there can neither be any question 
for the aforesaid reason. But there are some books which are 
contradicted by some, and therefore enjoy no universal ack- 
nowledgment. Here then was the first question, are they in 
all that they contain, in accordance with the faith of the 
church, or not ; if not, they are judged by themselves ;f) but 
if they are, they may be permitted to be read, but not as in- 
spired books,J) until after a due investigation of the reasons 
for and against, the church as the guard and interpreter of the 



*) Vincent. Lerenens. Comm. I, n. 2: "But in this Catholic Church we 
must be particularly careful to hold fast that doctrine, -which has been be- 
lieved in all places, at all times and by all." Quod ubique, quod semper, 
quod ab omnibus creditum est. . . . Quicquid omnes pariter uno codemque con- 
sensu aperte, frequenter, perseveranter tenuisse, scripsisse, docuisse cogno- 
verit, id sibi quoque intelligat absque omni dubitatione credendum. 

f ) Irenaens ads. Haer.: " Valentiniani in tantum processerunt audaciae 
ut quod ab his non olim conscriptum est. veritatem Evangelii titulent. in 
nihilo Apostolorum Evangeliis conveniens, ut nee Evangelium quidem apud- 
illos sine blasphemia sit. Si enim quod ab eis profertur, veritatis Evangel- 
ium est, dissimile autem hoc illis, quae ab Apostolus nobis tradita sunt ; qui 
volunt, possunt discere. . . .jam non esse id, quod ab Apostolis traditum est. 
veritatis Evangelium. 

%) Such were some of the canonical epistles for a while ; the epistle of 
St. Barnabas and the "Pastor of Hermas were never acknowledged. 7 '* 



230 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED. 

deposit of faith, will pronounce on them by divine assistance 
an infallible decision. And what was properly the point of 
investigation in order to decide this question ? This consisted 
as we have seen from our historical remarks, given above, prin- 
cipally in this, l)whether they were really authentical writings 
of the apostles or their immediate disciples, written, as it were 
under the very eyes of the apostles, and 2)whether in any part 
of the church they were by an uninterrupted tradition recog- 
nized as inspired books. Could this be sufficiently shown, ||) 
and was there no positive but perhaps only a negative testimo- 
ny against, as far as such a book had not come to the knowl- 
edge of other parts of the church, with all its proofs of- its 
genuineness and inspired character, the church settled at last 
the question as the guard and interpreter of the deposit of 
faith, xlccording to these principles the church proceeded in 
the question on the inspired books, and she did this in perfect 
consistency with the principles, according to which she has de- 
cided from the beginning, and continues to decide every ques- 
tion pertaining to faith and morals. And certainly, if it be 
granted, that to the living authority of the church the deposit 
of faith has been intrusted by divine ordinance, to be the 
keeper and interpreter of it, nobody can deny, that her pro- 
ceedings are consistent and conform to that, which natural 
reason demands. The divine authoritv of the church admit- 



||) Distincta est a posterioribus libris (sc. qui non sunt canonici) excellen- 
tia canonicae auctoritatis Y. et N. testament!, quae apostolorum confirmata 
temporibus, per successions episcoporum et propagations ecclesiarum tanquam 
in sede quad am sublimitcr constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis et pius in- 
tellectus. St. Aug. contra Faust. 1. II. c. 5. Ililgenfeld in his work "the 
Canon and the Criticism of the N. T. (Halle, 1863) says : '• The Catholic 
bishops became the fathers and guardians of the New Canon of the sacred books 
the substance of which was the universal apostolical doctrine (deren Grund- 
begriff eben das Gesammt-Apostolische war.). The Catholic church which 
believed herself to be in the possession of the genuine apostolical doctrine, 
by the bishops as the successors of the apostles, desired to possess this doctrine 
also in a written tradition." p. 35. 



THE GOSPELS DIVINELY INSPIRED. 231 

ted, her proceeding in showing the inspired character of the 
books of Scripture is a logically necessary consequence. This 
authority to prove here, would be a transgression of the limits 
of this treatise. This much, however, we may add, that this 
authority of the church is proved by her very existence, by 
her history, by her divine organization, by the continued di- 
vine testimonies of miracles, in such a manner, that also here 
the words of Scripture quoted above, are realized again: "Thy 
testimonies, 0, Lord, are very sure." And relying then on 
this authority we obtain a full evidence of the inspiration ; but 
without this authority, it is utterly impossible. Hence St. 
Augustin, the deepest mind among the fathers of the ancient 
church, expressed the same truth in these emphatic words : 
" Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Eccle- 
siae commoveret anctoritas." I indeed would not believe the 
gospel,*) if the authority of the catholic church would not move 
me." 



*) Contr. Epist. Manich. c. 6. (Opp. t. VIII. p. 154.) 




SUMMARY. 



Preface, 3-13 

Preliminary Remarks, 15-16 



PART I. 

THE FOUR GOSPELS CLAIM OUR FULL BELIEF ACCORDING TO 
THE PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM. 

ARTICLE I. 

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 

I. The authenticity of the gospel according to St. 

Matthew, 16-27 

II. The authenticity of the gospel according to St. 

Mark, 28-33 

III- The authenticity of the gospel according to St. 

Luke, 34-38 

IV. The authenticity of the gospel according to St. 

John, 39-44 

ARTICLE II. 

THE IMMUNITY OF THE GOSPEL FROM ERRORS AND CONTRA- 
DICTIONS. 

V. A general comparison of the four Gospels, 45-55 

VI. The chronology of the Gospels 55-73 

TIL The outlines of the life of Christ 

1). The genealogies contained in the Gospels, 73-78 

2). The blessed Virgin Mary, 78-82 

3). The so-called Brethren of the Lord, 83-91 



234 INDEX. 

4). The nativity of Christ; the Magi, 91-95 

5). The flight to Egypt, and the retired life at 

Nazareth, 95-100 

6). John the Baptist; the baptism of Christ; the 

begining of His public life, 100-104 

7). The first year of the public life of Christ, 780. 

IT. C,.... .104-110 

8). From the beginning of the second year until 

easter, 781. U. C, ., 110-117 

9). From easter until the feast of tabernacles, 

(from April until October, 781. U. C 117-123 

10). From the feast of tabernacles until the feast 
of the dedication, (from October until the 

end of December, 781. IT. C, 123-129 

11). From the feast of the dedication until the 

passion-week, (from the end of the year 781. 

IT. C, until the 20th of March, 782. U. C,..129-136 

12). The passion-week, from the solemn entrance 

into Jerusalem until the 14th of Nisan, (24th 

of March, 782. U. C.) 136-141 

13). The last supper on the 14th of Nisan, (24th of 

March.) 142-150 

14). The prayer in Gethsemani, 150-154 

15). Christ in the court of Caiphas, 155-162 

16). Christ delivered to Pilate, 162-169 

17). The crucifixion, 169-174 

18). The miracles accompanying the death of 

Christ; the hour of His death and burial,... 174-1 8 2 
19). The resurrection of Christ, 183-188 



PART II. 

THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE GOSPELS CORROBORATED: THE 

CORRECTNESS AND INSPIRED CHARACTER 

OF THE SACRED TEXT. 

I. The historical credibility of the gospels corrob- 
orated by profane history 

1). Josephus Fl. the historian of the Jews, 189-190 



INDEX. 235 

2). The Hasmonean dynasty supplanted and extir- 
pated by Herod, the Idumean, 191-102 

3). The sons of Herod, namely Archelaus, Herod 

Antipas and Philippus,. 193-194 

4). Judea with Samaria under the direct adminis- 
tration of the Romans, 194 

5). The Sadducees and Pharisees : the disputed 
passage of Josephus concerning Jesus of Na- 
zareth, 194-199 

II. ' The most reliable text of the gospels. 

1). Remarks on the autographs of the sacred wri- 
ters, 200-201 

2). The causes of the early corruption of the orig- 
inal text, ".201-202 

3). The revisions of the text, made about the be- 
ginning of the fourth century, 202-203 

4). The manuscripts extant and their principal 

difference, ....204-206 

5). The printed editions of the 16th, 17th, and 

18th, centuries, 206-210 

6). The texts given by Lachman and especially by 
Teschendorf ; the critical importance of the 
Latin Vulgate ; the catholic interpreter and 
translator in his relation to the Greek text. .210-214 

III. The gospels divinely inspired 

1). The difference- between credibility and inspi- 
ration, 214-216 

2). The necessity of inspiration, 216-218 

3). Inspiration denned in accordance with the 

declaration of the council of Trent, 218-220 

4). Inspiration cannot be satisfactorily proved to 
human reason on the ground of the protes- 
tant doctrine, 220-222 

5). The way in which inspiration was establish- 
ed in the first centuries 222-227 

6). The catholic argument for the fact of the 
inspiration satisfies the demands of human 
reason, 227-231 



ERRA_T^. 

Page 90, 1. 11, for cli. 29, read ch. 19. 

Page 94, note, 1. 6, for Magi, read Magis. 

Page 102, 1. 6, for are, read art. 

Page 104, 1. 25, for 180, read 780. 

Page 112, 1. 19, for principle, read principal. 

Page 128, 1. 31, and 180, 1. 3, for grievious read grievous. 

Page 191, note, 1. 11, for suppositions read supposititious. 

Page 197, 1. 4, for set, read sect. 

Page 35, 1. 10, insert a comma after journey. 

Page 216, 1. 21, for work, read word. 

In the references for Reitlimeier, read always Reithmayr. 




THE 




FOUR GOSPELS 



Examined and Vindicated 



ox 



CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES. 



By M:. Heiss, 

Rector of the Salesianum, near Milwaukee. 



£n^ 



MILWAUKEE : 

H o ffm a n. n B r o s . 

215 East Water Street. 




^M 



1863. 



^93 




-xj 





HOFFMANN BROS., 

IMPORTERS AND DEALERS IX 

CHURCH VESTMENTS ADD CHURCH FURNITURE, 

THEOLOGICAL WOEKS, PRAYER BOOKS, 

AND 

RELIGIOUS ARTICLES GENERALLY. 
215 East Water Street, Milwaukee, Wis. 



HOFFMANN BROS., beg leave respectfully to inform the Reverend 
Clergy that they have opened and keep constantly on hand 

A COMPLETE STOCK OF 
CHURCH VESTMENTS, 

ALTAR AND CHURCH FURNITURE, 

Theological, School and Devotional Books, 

CHASUBLES, DALMALIQUES, COPES, VEILS. 

OSTENSORIUMS, CHALICES, CIBORIUMS, CRUCIFIXES, 

CANDLESTICKS, HOLYWATER POTS, BEADS, MEDALS, &c. 

Lithographs, Photographs, Engravings, 
STATIONS, OR WAV OF THE CROSS, 

STATUES FOR CHURCHES AND CHAPELS, 

OF THE CELEBRATED MUNICH MANUFACTURE. 
All of which they will sell as low as any other house in America 
xxoFf , aa:^]V]v bros., 

315 East Water Street, Mllwankee, Wis. 



Ml 



US 






3*-^> := >5> y>>; 









>>~Ml 







23»>i>^^ 729* 



as 












2»M> 5>:^> 






... JBP. 


> »> .» z> 






I3^» ■;; ■> 


»^> "^ 


% 


1*>J>.H> 


3>3G 


— _ 


■s*> >^_> 


>j>^» ^» 


9 


m>j>y 


>*aa 


^ 


SR>>» 




Is* 


»>» » j> % 


j -> ~3B^ 


■> 


f»>->» 


I ) 7% 3g 




£>■ » "i> » 


- > -^ "^yS 


p 


*>>•»> 


>>~>" TS> 


» 



:se»i»»L*> 



jlx» '>-'^Be>- 












• /rag^ ; >?>>^ '^3»> 

."3P* 12*D ?3ter.» i>33fe> 



: - 



EB53B»8 












> 










->>j»- 


> ® ; 


»>> sr» ?>.' 


>.' ''■> 








~> ^> 


-» > > 


^>2>_ 


»>■ > ^a»"->> >.>- 


> JO* 




■) 30 




si >~ 


».a ^» 


* >:~> • s» ^>> >j 


i) > 


•O ' ,; 


>"•>> 


>» >^> 


> ~> > 


» . >■"'■' 


,->-, g* 


»'^3*J> > . ?> > 


L*> 


X> ' 


> .> > 


>>» ^5t 


"» 


:X> • 


>,.i>> 


»~) > ^> 









^36 





















>>^>^ 









>^ > _^»' •_>>■> ?^r^ 









2*fi£» 



afe>s*E^ 









s^*rn> 



^j?»' 









